The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Stemme GmbH Co. KG Model STEMME S10-VT sailplanes that incorporate a certain gear box. This AD requires you to incorporate flight restrictions into the Limitations Section of the sailplane flight manual and fabricate and install a placard close to the throttle lever indicating these restrictions. This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for the lower cog wheel in the gear box to rupture, which could result in loss of power and possible loss of control of the sailplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective on October 20, 2003.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation as of October 20, 2003.

•By e-mail: 9-ACE-7-Docket@faa.gov.Comments sent electronically must contain “Docket No. 2003-CE-36-AD” in the subject line. If you send comments electronically as attached electronic files, the files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII.

You may get the service information identified in this AD from Stemme GmbH Co. KG, Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, D-13355 Berlin, Germany; telephone: 49.33.41.31.11.70; facsimile: 49.33.41.31.11.73.

The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Stemme GmbH Co. KG Model STEMME S10-VT sailplanes that incorporate a part number 11AG gear box (serial numbers 43YYQ001 through 43YYQ093). The LBA reports two incidents where the lower cog wheels of the affected gear box failed. In both cases, the web of the cog wheel separated from the shaft.

What Are the Consequences if the Condition Is Not Corrected?

This condition, if not prevented, could cause the lower cog wheel in the gear box to rupture, which could result in loss of power and possible loss of control of the sailplane.

—Flight manual limitation:“The operation of the engine will be limited to maximum 100% power (max. continuous power).”—Flight manual limitation:“Hence the take-off procedure (take-off with take-off power 115%, see section 4.5.2.2. of the Flight Manual) must not be selected. Alternative procedures (i.e., take-off with max. continuous power 100%) are published in the Flight Manual.”—Placard:Installation of a placard close to the throttle lever with the following: “Operation above 100% continuous power is not allowed! (see SB A31-10-1065).”

The LBA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued German AD Number 2002-389/2, Effective date: April 17, 2003, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these sailplanes in Germany.

Was This in Accordance With the Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement?

These Stemme GmbH Co. KG Model STEMME S10-VT sailplanes are manufactured in Germany and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.

Per this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us informed of the situation described above.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed ADWhat Has FAA Decided?

We have examined the LBA's findings, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or developon other Stemme GmbH Co. KG Model STEMME S10-VT sailplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent the potential for the lower cog wheel in the gear box to rupture, which could result in loss of power and possible loss of control of the sailplane.

What Does This AD Require?

This AD requires you to incorporate restrictions into the Limitations Section of the flight manual and incorporate a placard close to the throttle lever indicating these restrictions. These restrictions and the placard are referenced in Stemme Service Bulletin A31-10-065, Am.-Index: 02a, dated February 25, 2003.

In preparation of this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to obtain technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included, in the rulemaking docket, a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action.

Why Is the FAA Not Mandating the Cog Wheel Replacement?

We are not mandating the cog wheel replacement (as specified in the service information) in this AD action because of the “bootstrapping requirement.” When we issue an AD that involves requirements affecting flight safety where we do not first provide notice and an opportunity for public comment, then we are only able to include a short-term action that immediately corrects the unsafe condition. The Administrative Procedures Act does not permit combining a long-term requirement with a short-term action when we do not provide prior public comment. We analyze the short-term action and the long-term action separately for justification to bypass public notice.

The FAA may initiate future AD action with public comment to mandate the cog wheel replacement as terminating action for the AFM requirements of this AD. This cog wheel replacement is optional in this AD as terminating action.

How Does the Revision to 14 CFR Part 39 Affect This Proposed AD?

On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Comments InvitedWill I Have the Opportunity To Comment Prior to the Issuance of the Rule?

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed underADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-36-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. If a person contacts us through a nonwritten communication, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

Regulatory FindingsWill This AD Impact Various Entities?

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Will This AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action?

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed underADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-36-AD” in your request.

Adoption of the AmendmentAccordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES1.The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(1) Incorporate a part number (P/N) 11AG gear box (serial numbers 43YYQ001 through 43YYQ093); and

(2) Are certificated in any category:

What is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for the lower cog wheel in the gear box to rupture, which could result in loss of power and possible loss of control of the sailplane.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

(e) To address this problem, you must accomplish the following:

ActionsComplianceProcedures(1) Incorporate the following flight restrictions into the Limitations Section of the flight manual:

(i) “The operation of the engine will be limited to maximum 100% power (max. continuous power).” and

(ii) “Hence the take-off procedure (take-off with take-off power 115%, see section 4.5.2.2, of the Flight Manual) must not be selectd. Alternative procedures (i.e.,take-off with max. continuous power 100%) are published in the flight Manual.”

Within the next 10 days after October 20, 2003 (the effective date of this AD), unless already accomplishedEither insert a copy of this portion of the AD or Stemme Service Bulletin A31-10-065, Am.-Index: 02a, dated February 25, 2003, into the Limitations Sectionof this of the AFM. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR43.7) may do this flight manual insertion. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with these portions of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation regulations (14 CFR 43.9).(2) Fabricate a placard that incorporates the following words (using at least 1/8-inch letters) and install this placard close to the throttle lever: “Operation above 100% continuous power is not allowed! (see SB A31-10-1065).”Within the next 10 days after October 20, 2003 (the effective date of this AD), unless already accomplishedNo specific procedures are necessary for this action. Stemme Service Bulletin A31-10-065, Am.-Index: 02a, dated February 25, 2003, references this action. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR the throttle 43.7) may do the placard requirements. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with these portions of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation (14 CFR 43.9).(3) As an alternative method of compliance to this AD, replace the lower cog wheel (P/N: 43.15.0028) with a modified cog wheel (P/N: 43:15:0043)At any time as terminating action for the limitations and placard requirements of this ADUse the instructions in Stemme Service Bulletin A31-10-065, Am.-Index: 02a, dated February 25, 2003.Why Is the FAA Not Mandating the Cog Wheel Replacement?

(f) We are not mandating the cog wheel replacement (as specified in the service information) in this AD action because of the “bootstrapping requirement.” When we issue an AD that involves requirements affecting flight safety where we do not first provide notice and an opportunity for public comment, then we are only able to include a short-term action that immediately corrects the unsafe condition.

(1) The Administrative Procedures Act does not permit combining a long-term requirement with a short-term action when we do not provide prior public comment. The short-term action and the long-term action are analyzed separately for justification to bypass public notice.

(2) We may initiate future AD action with public comment to mandate the cog wheel replacement as terminating action for the AFM requirements of this AD. This cog wheel replacement is optional in this AD as terminating action.

What About Alternative Methods of Compliance?

(g) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.13. Send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

Is There Material Incorporated by Reference?

(h) If you choose to do the replacement required by this AD, then you must use Stemme Service Bulletin A31-10-065, Am.-Index: 02a, dated February 25, 2003. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may get a copy from Stemme GmbH Co. KG, Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25, D-13355 Berlin, Germany; telephone: 49.33.41.31.11.70; facsimile: 49.33.41.31.11.73. You may review copies at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

Is There Other Information That Relates to This Subject?

(i) German AD Number 2002-389/2, Effective date: April 17, 2003, also addresses the subject of this AD.

The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes. This AD requires you to inspect for certain installed fuel booster pumps and replace that fuel booster pump, inspect other certain fuel booster pumps for defects, and either install lead protection spiral wrap or replace the defective fuel booster pumps, depending on whether defects are found. This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any defective fuel booster pump, which could result in electrical arcing from the leads in an air/fuel mixture.Such failure could lead to a fire or explosion of a fuel tank.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective on October 10, 2003.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation as of October 10, 2003.

•By e-mail:9-ACE-7-Docket@faa.gov. Comments sent electronically must contain “Docket No. 2003-CE-42-AD” in the subject line. If you send comments electronically as attached electronic files, the files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII.

You may get the service information identified in this AD from Pilatus Business Aircraft Ltd., Product Support Department, 11755 Airport Way, Broomfield, Colorado 80021; telephone: (303) 465-9099; facsimile: (303) 465-6040.

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes. The FOCA reports 11 reports of damaged fuel booster pump wires from 9 different aircraft. Within the FAA service difficulty/accident report system, we found eight occurrences of damaged fuel booster pump wires. This damage to the electrical wires could possibly cause electrical arcing when the wires get in an air/fuel mixture.

What Are the Consequences if the Condition Is Not Corrected?

Such electrical arcing could lead to a fire or explosion of a fuel tank.

—Inspecting the fuel booster pumps for defects;—Replacing fuel booster pumps;—Installing lead protection spiral wrap; and—Incorporating Temporary Revision No. 7, dated June 6, 2003, or Temporary Revision No. 37, dated June 6, 2003, to theSection 2—Limitationssection of the applicable pilot's operating handbook (POH). This is a temporary option and replacing the subject fuel booster pump or installing the lead protection spiral wrap is mandatory within a certain time frame.What Action Did the FOCA Take?

The FOCA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Swiss AD Number HB 2003-301, dated July 17, 2003, in order to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Switzerland.

Was This in Accordance With the Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement?

The Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 are manufactured in Switzerland and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.

Per this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the FOCA has kept us informed of the situation described above.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This ADWhat Has FAA decided?

We have examined the FOCA's findings, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Pilatus Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to detect and correct any defective fuel booster pump, which could result in electrical arcing from the leads in an air/fuel mixture. Such failure could lead to a fire or explosion of a fuel tank.

What Does This AD Require?

This AD requires you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service information.

In preparation of this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to obtain technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included, in the rulemaking docket, a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action.

How Does the Revision to 14 CFR Part 39 Affect This AD?

On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Compliance Time of This ADWhat Would Be the Compliance Time of This AD?

The compliance time of this AD is within the next 7 calendar days after October 10, 2003 (the effective date of this AD).

Why Is This Compliance Time Presented in Calendar Time Instead of Hours TIS?

The leads may rub and arc as a result of aircraft operation. Therefore, FAA has determined that a compliance based on calendar time should be utilized in this AD in order to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed on all aircraft in a reasonable time period.

Comments InvitedWill I Have the Opportunity To Comment Prior to the Issuance of the Rule?

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and anopportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed underADDRESSES.Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-42-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify it. If a person contacts us through a nonwritten communication, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.

Regulatory FindingsWill This AD Impact Various Entities?

We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Will This AD Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed underADDRESSES.Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-42-AD” in your request.

Adoption of the AmendmentAccordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):2003-20-15Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.:Amendment 39-13333; Docket No. 2003-CE-42-AD.When Does This AD Become Effective?

(a) This AD becomes effective on October 10, 2003.

Are Any Other ADs Affected By This Action?

(b) None.

What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD?

(c) This AD affects Models PC-12 and PC-12/45 airplanes, serial numbers 101 through 520, with fuel booster pump (fuel pump) part number (P/N) 969.84.11.401, 968.84.11.403, or 968.84.11.404 installed, that are certificated in any category.

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any defective fuel booster pump, which could result in electrical arcing from the leads in an air/fuel mixture. Such electrical arcing could lead to a fire or explosion of a fuel tank.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

(e) To address this problem, you must accomplish the following unless already accomplished:

(B) Re-identify the fuel booster pump P/N and 968.84.11.403 or 968.84.11.404 by adding the suffix letter “B” adjacent to the serial Maintenance number on the fuel pump identification plate.

(3) Do not install any part referenced in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD unless it has been modified per Pilatus PC12 Service Bulletin No. 28-011, Revision No. 1, dated July 11, 2003As of October 10, 2003 (the effective date of this AD)Not applicable.(4) If you have scheduled the replacement or installation required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD, but the schedule puts you beyond the time to comply, you may insert Temporary Revision No. 7, dated June 6, 2003, or Temporary Revision No. 37, dated June 6, 2003, in theSection 2—Limitationssection of the applicable pilot's operating handbook (POH) and operate the aircraft accordingPrior to further flight after scheduling the replacement of installation. The replacement or installation of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD must be accomplished within 50 hours time-in-service after October 10, 2003 (the effective date of this AD). After compliance with paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD, you may remove Temporary Revision No. 7, dated June 6, 2003, or Temporary Revision No. 37, dated June 6, 2003, from the POHAnyone who holds at least a private pilot certificate, as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7), may incorporate the POH revision required by this AD. You must make an entry into the aircraft records that shows compliance with this AD, per section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). Send the following to the Small Airplane Directorate using the procedures described in paragraph (f) of this AD: the airplane model and serial number designation; the number of hours TIS on the airplane; the scheduled date for the replacement/installation; and the name and location of the authorized repair shop.What About Alternative Methods of Compliance?

(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.13. Send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

Is There Material Incorporated by Reference?

(g) You must do the actions required by this AD per Pilatus PC12 Service Bulletin No. 28-011, Revision No. 1, dated July 11, 2003, Pilatus PC12 Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision No. 12-03 (12-10-01), dated June 6, 2003, and Pilatus PC12 Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision No. 28-02 (28-20-04), dated June 6, 2003. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may get a copy from Pilatus Business Aircraft Ltd., Product Support Department, 11755 Airport Way, Broomfield, Colorado 80021; telephone: (303) 465-9099; facsimile: (303) 465-6040.

This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-400, -500, -600, -700, and -800 series airplanes, that requires either modification of the wiring to the windshield wiper motors in the flight compartment or replacement of those windshield wiper motor/converters with new motor/converters. This action is necessary to prevent a reduction in flight crew visibility due to stalled wiper motors during heavy precipitation and a period of substantial crew workload, which could result in damage to the airplane structure and injury to flight crew, passengers, or ground personnel during final approach for landing. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES:

Effective November 13, 2003.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 13, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-400, -500, -600, -700, and -800 series airplanes was published in theFederal Registeron December 2, 2002 (67 FR 71500). That action proposed to require modification of the wiring to the windshield wiper motors in the flight compartment and nose wheel well areas. For certain airplanes, that action also provided for optional replacement of the windshield wiper motor/converters in the flight compartment.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

The airplane manufacturer requests that the FAA remove the requirement specified in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD to accomplish the modification prior to or concurrently with the replacement. The airplane manufacturer states that the current production airplanes with the new wiper motor/converters, and theequivalent service bulletins (discussed below), include the proposed wiring modification. It asserts that, if new wiper motor/converters are installed, accomplishing the airplane wiring modification prior to or concurrent with the wiper motor/converter replacement is redundant and does not add to the safety of the airplane. The airplane manufacturer also states that it will revise Boeing Service Bulletins 737-30-1054 and 737-30-1055 to remove the recommendation to accomplish the airplane wiring modification prior to or concurrent with the wiper motor/converter replacement.

The FAA agrees. We find that replacement of the new wiper motor/converters, without referencing the concurrent requirements of paragraph (a) of the proposed AD, will correct the root cause of the wiper motor stalls. Therefore, we have removed the requirement to accomplish the airplane wiring modification specified in paragraph (b) of this final rule (paragraph (a) of the proposed AD) prior to or concurrent with the replacement specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this final rule (paragraph (b) of the proposed AD).

Request To Mandate Optional Replacement

One commenter requests that we mandate the proposed optional replacement of the windshield wiper motor/converters provided in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD, because the proposed wiring modification and wiper blade load reduction specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD would only make the flight crew's visibility worse due to wiper blade load reduction. This commenter also requested an extension of compliance time to allow adequate time to produce enough replacements. The other commenter, the airplane manufacturer, requests that we allow operators to accomplish either the modification or replacement.

We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We do not agree that the optional replacement should be mandated. While we do agree that replacing the windshield wiper motor/converters is preferable to modifying the wiring to the windshield wiper motor, we have determined that the required modification will provide an acceptable level of safety for the affected airplanes. Therefore, we have changed this final rule to add a new paragraph (a), and re-lettered subsequent paragraphs accordingly, to clarify that operators have the option of accomplishing either the modification or replacement.

Although we do not agree to mandate the replacement, we do agree that the compliance time of this final rule for accomplishing either the modification or replacement may be extended. The wiper motor/converter manufacturer has confirmed that 36 months will allow it sufficient time to manufacture/refurbish motor/converters in the new configuration, provided operators order the motor/converters in a timely manner after the effective date of this final rule. We have determined that a compliance time of 36 months will not adversely affect safety and will ensure enough time for production of new motor/converters and enable operators to comply using the preferred method. We have revised this final rule accordingly.

Request To Reference Additional Service Information

Both commenters request that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1055, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2003, which describes procedures for replacement of the wiper motor/converters for Model 737-400 and “500 series airplanes equipped with brushless windshield wiper motor/converters, be added to the proposed AD for accomplishing the optional replacement for those airplanes. Both commenters further point out that this service bulletin was not included in the proposed AD.

We agree. Since the issuance of the proposed AD, we have reviewed and approved Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletins 737-30-1054 and 737-30-1055, both dated March 6, 2003, which describe procedures for the replacement of the wiper motor/converters. The proposed AD referenced the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1054 as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the replacement for Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes. The procedures specified in Revision 1 are essentially similar to those in the original issue of the service bulletins. We have changed this final rule to reference Revision 1 of those service bulletins as the appropriate sources of service information for the replacement. We have also added paragraph (d) to this final rule to add the replacement for Model 737-400 and -500 series airplanes, and added new paragraphs (e) and (f) to this final rule to give credit to operators for replacements accomplished before the effective date of this AD per the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletins 737-30-1054 and 737-30-1055. Replacement, accomplished after the effective date of this AD, shall be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1055, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2003.

Request To Remove References to Windshield Wiper Blade Flutter

The airplane manufacturer also states that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1055 will be revised to state that it corrects the wiper stalling problem, not the wiper blade flutter as described in the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1054. The airplane manufacturer asserts that the wiper blade flutter was a Boeing production issue, neither affecting safe operation of the system nor prevalent in the fleet.

From this statement, we infer that the airplane manufacturer is requesting that we remove references to loss of wiper blade load leading to flutter of the wiper arm from the proposed AD. We agree and have revised this final rule accordingly.

Request To Clarify Description of Cause of Unsafe Condition

The airplane manufacturer requests that we clarify the cause of the reported incidents stated in the Discussion section of the proposed AD. The airplane manufacturer explains that further investigation of the windshield wiper stalling problem revealed the root cause of the stalling to be inadequate backlash or clearance between the gears inside the wiper motor's converter, causing large internal losses due to friction between the gears, not the result of inadequate torque caused by insufficient electrical current as described in the proposed AD.

In light of the results of the additional investigation described previously, we agree that the cause of the wiper motor/converter stalling could be more accurately described. However, the Discussion section is not repeated in a final rule, so no change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise the Description of Location of the Modification

The other commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to exclude references to the “nose wheel well areas.” The commenter points out that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1052 does not specify a wiring modification in the those areas. We agree and have revised this final rule to remove references to the nose wheel well areas.

Request To Allow Designated Engineering Representative (DER) Approval

The airplane manufacturer requests that certification of the new wiper motor/converter installed on airplanes without the wiring modification or production equivalent be accomplished by DER approval of revised BoeingService Bulletins 737-30-1054 and 737-30-1055.

We do not agree. Because we have revised this final rule to allow operators to accomplish the replacement per Boeing Service Bulletins 737-30-1054 and 737-30-1055, as applicable, as explained previously, there is no need for DER approval. No change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

Change to Labor Rate Estimate

We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 483 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 162 Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The wiring modification, if accomplished in lieu of the wiper motor/converter replacement, will take approximately 15 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the airplane manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the wiring modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $157,950, or $975 per airplane.

The wiper motor/converter replacement, if accomplished in lieu of the wiring modification, will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Parts cost will be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD is estimated to be $31,590, or $195 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

Currently, there are no affected Model 737-400 or -500 series airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, should an airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the wiring modification, if accomplished in lieu of the wiper motor/converter replacement, will take approximately 20 work hours to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the airplane manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the wiring modification will be $1,300 per airplane.

Should an affected Model 737-400 or -500 series airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, wiper motor/converter replacement, if accomplished in lieu of the wiring modification, will take approximately 4 work hours to accomplish the replacement of the wiper motor/converters, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Parts cost will be minimal. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement will be $260 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the captionADDRESSES.

Adoption of the AmendmentAccordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:2003-20-13Boeing:Amendment 39-13331. Docket 2001-NM-326-AD.

Applicability:Model 737-400 and -500 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1052, dated October 12, 2000; and Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1049, dated June 1, 2000; certificated in any category.

Note 1:

This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance:Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.

To prevent a reduction in flight crew visibility due to stalled wiper motors duringheavy precipitation and a period of substantial crew workload, which could result in damage to the airplane structure and injury to flight crew, passengers, or ground personnel during final approach for landing; accomplish the following:

Compliance Time

(a) For all airplanes: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (b) of this AD, or paragraph (c) or (d) of this AD, as applicable.

Modification

(b) Modify the wiring to the left and right windshield wiper motors in the flight compartment (including changing certain wire bundles, reducing the windshield wiper blade force to between 3.5 and 4.5 pounds, and doing an operational test of the windshield wiper system), per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1052, dated October 12, 2000 (for Model 737-400 and -500 series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1049, dated June 1, 2000 (for Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes); as applicable.

Replacement

(c) For Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes: Replace the left and right windshield wiper motor/converters in the flight compartment (including increasing the blade force of the windshield wipers to between 6.5 and 7.5 pounds; and doing an operational test of the windshield wiper system), per Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1054, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2003.

(d) For Model 737-400 and -500 series airplanes equipped with brushless windshield wiper motor/converters: Replace the left and right windshield wiper motor/converters in the flight compartment (including increasing the blade force of the windshield wipers to between 6.5 and 7.5 pounds; and doing an operational test of the windshield wiper system), per Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1055, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2003.

Credit for Previously Accomplished Replacements

(e) Replacement of the left and right windshield wiper motor/converters accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD per Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1054, dated May 9, 2002, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.

(f) Replacement of the left and right windshield wiper motor/converters accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD per Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1055, dated November 14, 2002, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (d) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 2:

Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permit

(h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(i) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1049, dated June 1, 2000; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-30A1052, dated October 12, 2000; Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1054, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2003; or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-30-1055, Revision 1, dated March 6, 2003; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes, that requires installation of four lanyards on the forward access panel/door. This action is necessary to prevent the forward ceiling access panel/door from falling down and blocking the aisle, which would impede evacuation in an emergency. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES:

Effective November 13, 2003.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 13, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes was published in theFederal Registeron April 16, 2003 (68 FR 18569). That action proposed to require installation of four lanyards on the forward access panel/door.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.

Request To Revise Applicability

The commenter, the manufacturer, requests that the applicability of the proposed AD be revised to include only those airplanes that remain in a passenger configuration and to exclude those certified to permanently fly in a cargo configuration. The commenter also requests that special consideration be given to airplanes that are presently parked (out of service). The commenter states that, of the total number of airplanes affected by the proposed AD and still in flying condition, approximately 50 percent have been converted to a cargo configuration. The commenter adds that there are 20 affected airplanes in active service thathave retained the passenger configuration, which represents 22 percent of the total affected fleet, and that the remaining flyable passenger fleet is presently parked.

The FAA does not agree that the applicability of the AD should be revised. Airplanes that have been modified to fly in a cargo configuration may still be subject to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Numerous supplemental type certificates (STC) exist, which, depending on the configuration, may or may not have the forward ceiling access panel/door installed. Airplanes in the cargo configuration, which do have the forward ceiling access panel/door installed are still subject to this AD. However, operators of airplanes in the cargo configuration that do not have the forward ceiling panel/door installed may request that the cargo modification be approved as an alternate method of compliance, as explained in Note 1 of this AD pertaining to altered products. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

We do not agree that special consideration is necessary for airplanes that have been parked. Those airplanes need only comply with the requirements of this AD before they return to service. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39/Effect on the AD

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.

Change To Labor Rate Estimate

We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 100 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 78 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,070, or $65 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the captionADDRESSES.

Adoption of the AmendmentAccordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:2003-20-14Boeing:Amendment 39-13332. Docket 2003-NM-48-AD.

Applicability:Model 727-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as listed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-25-0298, dated February 13, 2003.

Note 1:

This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance:Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.

To prevent the forward ceiling access panel/door from falling down and blocking the aisle, which would impede evacuation in an emergency, accomplish the following:

Lanyard Installation

(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, install 4 lanyards on the forward ceiling access panel/door, in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-25-0298, dated February 13, 2003.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 2:

Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-25-0298, dated February 13, 2003. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-19-15, applicable to Pratt Whitney PW4000 series turbofan engines. AD 2003-19-15 was published in theFederal Registeron September 30, 2003 (68 FR 56143). In the amendatory language, under § 39.13 [Amended], the amendment number of the new action was inadvertently omitted. This document corrects that omission. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.

A final rule airworthiness directive, FR Doc. 03-24486, applicable to Pratt Whitney PW4000 series turbofan engines, was published in theFederal Registeron September 30, 2003 (68 FR 56143). The following correction is needed:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is confirming the effective date of October 27, 2003, for the final rule that appeared in theFederal Registerof June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35290). The direct final rule amends the regulation that established conditions under which over-the-counter (OTC) skin protectant astringent drug products are generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded. This action revises some labeling for astringent drug products to be consistent with the final rule for OTC skin protectant drug products (68 FR 33362, June 4, 2003) and adds labeling for certain small packages (styptic pencils). This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule. This action is part of FDA's ongoing review of OTC drug products.

In theFederal Registerof June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35290), FDA solicited comments concerning the direct final rule for a 75-day period ending August 27, 2003. FDA stated that the effective date of the direct final rule would be on October 27, 2003, 60 days after the end of the comment period, unless any significant adverse comment was submitted to FDA during the comment period. FDA did not receive any significant adverse comments.

In this final rule, the Postal Service adopts an amendment to Domestic Mail Manual standards that expands eligibility for Nonprofit Standard Mail rates by exempting certain matter soliciting monetary donations from application of the cooperative mail rule.

In a proposed rule published in theFederal Registeron May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23937-23939), the Postal Service proposed to expand the eligibility for Nonprofit Standard Mail rates by exempting certain fundraising mailings from the application of the cooperative mail rule. For the reasons explained herein, the Postal Service adopts the proposal, with minor modifications.

The proposal provided background concerning Nonprofit Standard Mail eligibility; the traditional role of Congress in expansion of eligibility for these rates; the history of the cooperative mail rule and its application to fundraising mailings; recent concernsraised by nonprofit representatives concerning application of the cooperative mail rule on fundraising mail and potential effects on nonprofit organizations; and proposed legislation to exempt certain fundraising mail from application of the rule. The proposal also explained the Postal Service's reluctance to propose a rulemaking on these issues since expansion of eligibility for nonprofit rates has traditionally been accomplished through legislation. Nevertheless, as the proposal discussed, the Postal Service determined to embark upon this rulemaking with the understanding that it represented the consensus of parties with an interest in nonprofit issues, including bipartisan Congressional support, representatives of both nonprofit organizations and professional fundraisers, and the Postal Service; that it was needed to assist nonprofit organizations in obtaining support necessary to fund their programs; and that this result could be accomplished more quickly administratively than legislatively.

The Postal Service received 67 comments concerning its proposal, including one that was received late but was considered. The commenters were diverse, including nonprofit organizations and organizations representing such organizations; professional fundraisers and organizations representing these commercial entities; Congressional representatives; private individuals; and an organization representing state officials that regulate charities. The comments also presented a broad range of views. A significant majority of the comments urged the Postal Service to adopt the rule as proposed. A small number of comments, concerned with potential abuses, recommended limitation of the proposed rule. Of these commenters, a small number recommended that the Postal Service withdraw the proposal, while the remainder recommended that it be adopted with additional restrictions. In contrast, a lesser number of comments recommended that the exemption from application of the cooperative mail rule be expanded even further. Additionally, several comments recommended that the rule should be retroactive.

One of the comments that urged withdrawal of the rule argued that the rule would primarily benefit commercial fundraisers, rather than nonprofit organizations, while the other spoke more generally of potential abuse. If the former assertion were proven to be true, it would give the Postal Service reason to consider withdrawing the proposal. That is, the Postal Service understands that the primary concern of Congress and the nonprofit industry in seeking changes in this area was to benefit nonprofit organizations. Admittedly, the Postal Service does not have independent knowledge to verify the accuracy of the commenter's claims, since the Postal Service does not monitor or regulate the business relationships between nonprofit organizations and professional fundraisers. The comment did not provide evidence to substantiate its claim. Moreover, both nonprofit organizations and associations representing them, who obviously have an interest in this question, urge adoption of the proposal or a modified version of it. This suggests, and some of these comments specifically state, that the change will benefit at least some nonprofit organizations. Accordingly, the Postal Service does not find it appropriate to reject the proposal, as urged by this comment.

The comments that urge the imposition of restrictions narrowing the proposed exemption from the cooperative mail rule do so for reasons related to those raised by comments seeking withdrawal of the proposal. That is, although they do not urge rejection of the new policy, these comments express concern that some professional fundraisers may use the new rules to take advantage of inexperienced or unsophisticated nonprofit organizations.

At the outset, it should be noted that the proposed rule does not dictate the terms of the relationship between nonprofit organizations and fundraisers. If anything, it increases the options available to the parties. For instance, it does not prevent nonprofits from entering the type of principal-agent relationship with fundraisers contemplated by the cooperative mail rule. And, as urged by the numerous parties that sought the Postal Service rulemaking in this area, it allows the nonprofits to consider other relationships to retain the services of professional fundraisers.

The Postal Service does not doubt that the proposed change in its standards will provide individual nonprofit organizations the freedom to enter agreements that, in hindsight, at least a few will conclude to have been unwise. However, the Postal Service does not believe that this provides the justification, at least at this time, to adopt the additional restrictions urged by some comments. Those proposals recommend that the Postal Service require nonprofits and fundraisers to adhere, and certify their compliance, to a variety of conditions concerning their relationship. The conditions suggested include: (1) A restriction against any officer, director, principal, or fiduciary of the party that is ineligible to mail at nonprofit rates (hereafter “ineligible participant”) or a corporate affiliate or close relative of the ineligible participant serving as an officer, director, or key employee of the nonprofit; (2) a requirement that the arrangement between the nonprofit and ineligible participant be governed by a written contract, and that this contract be signed by a board member or officer of the nonprofit; (3) a requirement that the donations be deposited in a bank account under the nonprofit's exclusive control; (4) a requirement that the ineligible participant have no ownership or control over the list of donors responding to the solicitation, beyond a limited contingent security interest; (5) a requirement that the ineligible participant not retain ownership rights to intellectual property in the fundraising package developed at the nonprofit's expense; (6) a requirement that, in instances where the ineligible participant extends credit to the nonprofit, the credit terms are not conditioned upon the continued employment of the ineligible participant; and (7) a requirement that the mailing not constitute an excess benefit transaction as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. As explained, the Postal Service has determined to adopt the fourth suggestion, in part. Other than that item, for the reasons discussed below, the Postal Service has determined not to adopt the restrictions suggested by these commenters.

First, based on comments received by the Postal Service, it is clear there is significant disagreement as to whether any, much less these, additional restrictions should be adopted. As discussed above, and in the earlierFederal Registernotice, the Postal Service proposed its rule change reluctantly, based on an understanding there was a broad consensus among interested parties supporting it. Although there appears to remain a general consensus in support of the proposal, there is no consensus supporting any of the suggested additional restrictions.

Second, even if the Postal Service found it appropriate to consider additional postal standards in this area, it is not convinced that the standards suggested are necessarily appropriate. The Postal Service understands the nonprofit universe to be diverse. For example, nonprofits may be large or small, well-established or relatively new, relatively well-funded or not well-funded, run by a permanent paid staffor all-volunteer. It seems to us difficult to impose a set of restrictions that should be universally applied to all of these organizations. However, that is what the comments suggest.

Third, even if the terms suggested by the commenters are reasonable, the need to impose them by regulation is not clear to the Postal Service. That is, although the need to ensure that nonprofit organizations are not subject to abuses by commercial entities is a laudable objective, it might be accomplished, or at least attempted, through alternatives to regulation. For example, education or training of nonprofits may prove to be sufficient, particularly if it is true that adherence to the suggestions is financially beneficial for the nonprofit. There are a number of interested entities that might provide this education and training: associations representing nonprofit organizations; associations representing fundraisers; and government entities that regulate professional fundraisers and nonprofits. The Postal Service encourages these associations and government agencies to undertake efforts to educate nonprofit organizations and to take other appropriate measures to protect nonprofits from potential abuses. We also encourage nonprofit organizations to utilize these resources and to review their existing and proposed fundraising arrangements and consider whether the terms of those arrangements are in their best interests. The Postal Service will be happy to assist, as appropriate, in these efforts.

Fourth, the Postal Service also has doubts that the procedures suggested by some of the comments are administratively feasible. The comments did not appear to suggest that the Postal Service undertake the difficult task of independently verifying mailers' compliance with the proposed conditions. Rather, they suggested that the parties each sign the postage statements certifying compliance with the new standards and that the Postal Service rely upon these statements. However, the Postal Service does not require all parties to sign the postage statement at this time and, when analogous proposals have been raised in the past, mailers have pointed out the logistical problems they would face if required to sign postage statements for mail prepared and entered by their agents. Moreover, even if it is not contemplated by the commenters that the Postal Service will seek to enforce the suggested conditions beyond ensuring that the parties sign the postage statement, it is unlikely that the Postal Service can avoid all other enforcement activity. For instance, if it is alleged that parties are not in compliance, despite mailing at the nonprofit rates while certifying they did comply, it is likely that the Postal Service would be expected to investigate the assertions. Unlike violations of the current cooperative mail rule, which often can be determined by examination of the parties' contractual arrangements, some of the proposed conditions would likely require a more extensive investigation. For example, the restriction against officers and others with close ties to the ineligible participant (including the close relatives of these individuals) serving as officers, directors, or key employees of the nonprofit would require an exhaustive examination of the organization charts and employment rolls of each organization. Determining whether there is a violation of the IRS excess benefit transaction standard would require Postal Service employees to develop expertise in these standards and to obtain the information needed to apply them. Given the possibility of IRS investigations of the parties under the same standard, this requirement would create the risk of duplicative government efforts.

There is also the likelihood that the proposed conditions will create practical, administrative hardships for some nonprofits. For example, the requirement that the donated funds be deposited in a bank account controlled exclusively by the nonprofit could prove difficult for nonprofits that, because of size or other concerns, are ill-equipped to handle such accounts. Similarly, the requirement that the board members or officers sign fundraising agreements could create difficulties for organizations that delegate these responsibilities to other parties. As the Postal Service is aware from its own purchasing procedures, it is not unusual for employees that are not officers to be given authority to sign contracts.

Adoption of the proposed conditions also could work to the financial detriment of some nonprofits. The proposed rule provides additional options for nonprofits, thereby giving them additional choices in their efforts to find the arrangement that will maximize the benefit to the nonprofit. For instance, it may be beneficial for some nonprofits to consider arrangements concerning donor lists, intellectual property rights, and credit terms beyond those that would be permitted under the proposed conditions. Limiting the choices available to nonprofits might, in some instances, take away the option that would be best for some organizations. Of course, it could be argued that increasing the options available to nonprofits will increase the likelihood that some, particularly the least sophisticated, will make the wrong choice. However, as observed above, the appropriate safeguard against this possibility would seem to be the education of nonprofits to make the best choices in their particular circumstances, rather than eliminating options that might be prove to be the best choice for some of them.

Finally, the Postal Service is concerned that adoption of the proposed conditions may create conflicts with state or federal statutes and that, if such conflicts occur, mailers would be placed in the untenable position of determining whether to comply with the statutes or with postal regulations. Indeed, as discussed in the notice announcing the proposed rule in 65 FR 23939 , ensuring that our customers “do not unintentionally violate the laws of those states that regulate the financial arrangements between nonprofits and certain types of professional fundraisers” was one of the motives underlying the rulemaking. The Postal Service is aware that all states have agencies with oversight over charitable solicitations, including state Attorney Generals; Secretaries of State; and Departments of Consumer Protection, Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Agriculture and Consumer Services, Commerce, Commerce and Consumer Protection, Professional and Financial Regulation, Business Regulation, or Regulation and Licensing, or a combination of such state agencies. The Postal Service is aware also that most states have laws regulating the relationship between professional fundraisers and their nonprofit clients. At the present time, it appears that at least 28 states have enacted some type of financial distribution requirement on charitable fundraisers and, if anything, we understand that the trend toward such state oversight is increasing. Additionally, there are a number of federal agencies with the authority and expertise to enact and enforce standards concerning these relationships, such as the Federal Trade Commission, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of Justice. Under an exemption of fundraising mailings from the cooperative mail rule, the states and federal agencies will be able to adopt and enforce their standards without concern that such action might be in conflict with postal rules.

As alluded to above, the Postal Service has determined to adopt a condition concerning donor lists (i.e.,the lists of persons contributing donations in response to the solicitation). Under this condition, the exemption from application of the cooperative mail rule will apply only where the nonprofit organization is given a list of the donors, contact information for those persons, and the amount of their donations. Based on past reviews of fundraising agreements, the Postal Service believes that this condition is already generally followed in the fundraising industry. Moreover, compliance with this condition generally can be determined by postal officials from review of the agreement between the fundraiser and the nonprofit. Finally, to guard against the possibility that some nonprofits will be better served financially if not subject to this condition, postal standards will allow them to waive the receipt of this listing, as long as that is done in writing.

Based on these considerations, the Postal Service has determined not to adopt at this time the remaining restrictions suggested by some comments. Nevertheless, they do raise significant concerns and the Postal Service's Consumer Advocate will monitor implementation of the rule to determine whether abuses are occurring. As promised in the proposal, if such abuses or other unintended consequences occur after the rulemaking, the Postal Service will consider a further rulemaking or other administrative actions.

Several commenters, although in favor of the proposal, assert that the rulemaking did not go far enough. They assert that the exemption from the cooperative mail rule should also cover the sale of products and services, at least those of nominal value, as well as a variety of documents including brochures, thank you letters, letters confirming the amount of donations, newsletters, and “chase” letters. The Postal Service understands the latter to refer to letters that follow up on telemarketing fundraising campaigns and remind donors that their pledges have not been paid. Assuming that understanding of “chase” letters is correct, the Postal Service considers them to be a solicitation for monetary donations within the proposal. Accordingly, as long as they do not contain other disqualifying material, such letters would be exempt from application of the cooperative mail rule.

The Postal Service has determined not to expand the proposal to provide that pieces promoting the sale of products and services also be exempted from application of the cooperative mail rule. As explained in the proposal, the exemption is strictly limited to fundraising mailings seeking monetary donations and does not apply to mailings promoting any goods or services. The suggestion goes beyond the consensus agreement that led to the rulemaking. Moreover, as the Postal Service explained in the notice discussing the proposal, adoption of the suggestion would create significant potential for abuse by commercial organizations and may place small businesses and other for-profit organizations who sell similar goods and services at a competitive disadvantage. The suggestion that the proposal be expanded to cover only products and services of nominal value does not alter these considerations; if anything, it could create concerns in administering what is included within that standard.

The Postal Service also has determined not to expand this rulemaking to cover the other documents (e.g., thank you letters, newsletters, confirmations of donations) identified in the comments. These suggestions are beyond the scope of the rulemaking as well as the consensus favoring the exemption of certain fundraising mailings from application of the cooperative mail rule. Moreover, the need for a rulemaking to address these documents is unclear. The Postal Service is not aware of any general concern regarding its policies involving these documents. Some of them may, in fact, be generally sent as First-Class Mail, and thereby they are not eligible for Nonprofit Standard Mail rates in any case.

Finally, several commenters suggest that the proposed policy be made retroactive. The Postal Service has determined not to do so and, as explained in its proposal, the change in policy is prospective only, effective on the date of enactment. A retroactive change could open the Postal Service to an undetermined number of refund claims.

For these reasons, the Postal Service adopts the rule as proposed but, in addition to the condition described above, makes three minor changes. First, the proposed revision was to apply only to nonprofit organizations authorized to mail at the nonprofit rates. The rule is changed to apply to all customers authorized to mail at Nonprofit Standard Mail rates. Second, the proposed rule is revised to make clear that the exception from application of the cooperative mail rule applies only where the monetary donations solicited are for the entity authorized to mail at nonprofit rates. Finally, the language is revised to make clear that the exception is prospective only.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

PART 111—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows:Authority:

2. Add the following to Domestic Mail Manual section E670.5.3: “Exception: effective November 13, 2003, this standard no longer applies to mailings by an organization authorized to mail at Nonprofit Standard Mail rates soliciting monetary donations to the authorized mailer and not promoting or otherwise facilitating the sale or lease of any goods or service. This exception applies only where the organization authorized to mail at Nonprofit Standard Mail rates is given a list of each donor, contact information (e.g., address, telephone number) for each, and the amount of the donation or waives in writing the receipt of this list.”

An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes will be published.

The EPA is taking direct final action approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for Bernalillo County, New Mexico, which is a carbon monoxide maintenance area. This SIP revision was submitted to EPA by the Governor of New Mexico on May 15, 2003. More specifically, EPA is approving the county's revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for carbon monoxide (CO) for 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2006. This budget was developed using EPA's latest emissionsmodeling program, MOBILE6. This submittal updates the maintenance plan by establishing new transportation conformity MVEBs for use by the Mid-Region Council of Governments, the area's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). These budgets will continue to maintain the total on-road mobile source emissions for the area at or below the attainment level for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES:

This rule is effective on November 24, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 10, 2003. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in theFederal Registerinforming the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 office listed below. Electronic comments should be sent either toDiggs.Thomas@epa.govor tohttp://www.regulations.gov,which is an alternative method for submitting electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the detailed instructions described in the Final Action part of this document. Copies of the State's submittal and other documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in advance.

Throughout this document whenever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

OutlineI. BackgroundII. What Is MOBILE6?III. Analysis of the State's SubmittalA. Why Were Updated Carbon Monoxide Budgets Established?B. Recalculating the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget with MOBILE6IV. Final ActionA. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?V. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsI. Background

In 1990, the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County (Albuquerque) in New Mexico had a CO design value of 11.1 parts per million, exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 9 parts per million (8-hour average basis). Consequently, Albuquerque was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for CO under the Clean Air Act (the Act). As required by the Act, on November 5, 1992, New Mexico submitted for EPA approval a revision to the SIP to address Albuquerque's CO nonattainment.

Different parts of the November 1992 SIP submittal were approved at different times, with approval of all aspects completed in June of 1996.

Air quality data in the Albuquerque area showed no violations of the CO NAAQS between 1992 and 1995, meeting the first criterion for redesignation. On April 14, 1995, New Mexico submitted a request that Albuquerque be redesignated to attainment for CO. EPA proposed approval of this request on February 16, 1996. This approval was made effective on July 15, 1996.

The Act also requires a periodic inventory of all emissions from area, mobile, and stationary sources. The 1993 emission inventory found the following CO emissions levels, in tons per day: Stationary sources, 3.18; area sources, 111.60; On-road mobile sources, 274.16; and nonroad mobile sources, 45.74. Total CO emissions were 434.69 tons per day.

This inventory was further updated in 1996. This updated inventory reflected the following CO emissions levels, in tons per day: On-road mobile sources, 266.99; nonroad mobile sources, 50.90; area sources, 67.19; and stationary sources, 3.92. Total CO emissions were inventoried at 389.0 tons per day.

The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area submitted further revisions to its maintenance plan emissions budgets on February 4, 1999, using the MOBILE5 emission factor modeling program. These revisions, for years 1996-2006, increased the budgets for mobile and stationary source emissions but decreased the budget for area source emissions, resulting in an overall decrease in budgeted emissions. These revisions also established a 2010 emissions budget. A direct final rule approving these revisions was published December 20, 1999. However, adverse comments were received and the direct final approval was withdrawn. After addressing the comments received, the EPA gave final approval to the budget revisions for 1996-2010 on May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33455). The revised MVEBs are as follows, in tons of CO emissions per day: 1996, 266.99; 1999, 229.09; 2002, 209.1; 2005, 205.67; 2006, 205.86; and 2010, 222.46.

II. What Is MOBILE6?

MOBILE6 is the latest in a series of EPA emissions factor models for estimating pollution from on-road motor vehicles in states outside of California and represents the first major update of the preexisting MOBILE model since 1993. The release of this model was announced in aFederal Registernotice published on January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4254). This date marks the beginning of the two-year grace period, after which all areas must use MOBILE6 for emissions factor modeling for transportation conformity purposes. MOBILE6 calculates emissions of carbon monoxide and other pollutants from passenger cars, motorcycles, buses, and light-duty and heavy-duty trucks. The model accounts for the emission impacts of factors such as changes in vehicle emissions standards, changes in vehicle populations, and variation in local conditions such as temperature, humidity, fuel quality, and air quality programs.

MOBILE6 is used to calculate current and future inventories of motor vehicle emissions at the national and local level. These inventories are used to make decisions about air pollution policies and programs at the local, state and national level. Inventories based on MOBILE6 are also used to meet the federal Clean Air Act's SIP and transportation conformity requirements.

The MOBILE model was first developed in 1978 and MOBILE6 is the first major update of the model since 1993. It has been updated many times to reflect changes in vehicle fleet composition and fuels, to incorporate EPA's growing understanding of vehicle emissions, and to cover new emissions regulations and modeling needs.

The existing MVEBs for CO were last modified through a SIP revision approved and made effective by EPA on May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33455).

To address and accommodate the release of MOBILE6 as the latest EPA-approved emissions factor model, thegovernor of New Mexico submitted a SIP revision to EPA on May 15, 2003. The MVEBs contained in the current CO maintenance plan were calculated with a previous emissions factor model, MOBILE5a. This submittal revises the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the years 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2006 using MOBILE6. Note that only the MVEBs are being revised using the MOBILE6 model; budgets for the other source categories will remain unchanged as the MOBILE6 model does not affect these categories. However, changes in the estimated amount of CO produced by the on-road mobile source category will affect the CO baseline level and the CO totals by year. Therefore, the baseline level and amounts of total CO by year will be revised in response to the MOBILE6 analysis.

The EPA guidance document, Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity, issued by John Seitz on January 18, 2002 (“MOBILE6 Guidance”), states that nonattainment and maintenance areas may forgo the requirement to update all planning assumptions when updating the MVEBs with MOBILE6, if the area can demonstrate that these assumptions have not changed since the last budget revision. For CO, population is the most important assumption underlying the CO forecasts as it has a direct impact on the number of miles driven. Comparing the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County population figure for the year 2000 used in the last SIP revision (556,248) to the population for the same area recorded in the 2000 Census (556,678) results in a difference of 0.077%, less than 1%. Because the estimated figure matches so closely with the actual census count, the requirement that the latest planning assumptions continue to be valid is met and this SIP revision continues to use these estimates. Additionally, work has already begun on the required second ten-year maintenance plan, due to EPA in June of 2004. With this expected submission, the MPO will update the emissions inventory in its entirety with the latest planning assumptions and demographic data.

B. Recalculating the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget With MOBILE6

Because of the significant difference in modeling results between the previous version of the emissions factor model, MOBILE5a, and the updated version, MOBILE6, the on-road mobile source category in the emissions inventory was recalculated for all years represented in the ten-year maintenance time frame of the SIP using MOBILE6. This inventory provides the basis for determining the MVEBs for CO. The MVEBs are the same as the total estimated CO, in tons per day, for the on-road mobile source category in the emissions inventory. For all years beyond 2006 (the last modeled year), the MVEB will be held at the 2006 level.

The table below compares the existing MVEBs with the revised MVEBs submitted with this SIP revision.

For all budget years, MOBILE6 estimates a greater production of CO than MOBILE5a. Although the MOBILE6 emissions are estimated to be higher than that previously predicted by MOBILE5a, the model still demonstrates greater relative emissions reductions benefits. Recall that only the budget estimates for on-road mobile source emissions (the MVEBs) are being revised with the MOBILE6 model. Changes in the MVEBs will, however, affect the overall CO budgets and CO baseline level even though the amount of CO in the other source categories (nonroad mobile, area, and stationary) will remain unchanged. The MOBILE6 Guidance provides that nonattainment and maintenance areas may revise the on-road mobile emissions inventory and MVEBs without revising the entire SIP and other emission inventory categories, if the SIP continues to demonstrate maintenance of the standard when the MOBILE5a-based on-road mobile source inventories are replaced with MOBILE6 inventories. To demonstrate this, the following table shows the entire emission inventory, with the on-road mobile source category replaced with the resultant MOBILE6-derived estimates. The revised MVEBs are shown, along with the currently approved inventories from the other source categories. These inventories were approved in a revision to the CO maintenance plan on May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33455).

The 1996 figure found in the revised total column, 538.32 tpd, is the new CO baseline level as calculated with MOBILE6. The original baseline level, as approved on May 24, 2000, was 389.0 tpd. This level represents the amount of CO, in tons per day, which may be emitted by all sources and still allow the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area to be in attainment of the NAAQS. Essentially, this baseline represents the “cap” of emissions from all sources. The results of MOBILE6 modeling, which raises the baseline level, indicates that the initial CO baseline, as determined using MOBILE5a, was set too low. This new analysis indicates that the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area actually had a larger amount of CO in the airshed in 1996, yet still met the NAAQS. The following table illustrates the relative gain in emissions reductions when comparing the MOBILE5a-derived estimates with those of MOBILE6.

The greater decline in emissions seen with MOBILE6 between 1996 and 2006 can be attributed to the sensitivity of the model to local parameters incorporated into MOBILE6 and the control programs in place in Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. So, although the emissions cap is higher with MOBILE6, that difference is due to the sensitivity of the newer model.

MOBILE6 offers a more robust and accurate estimate of emissions than prior versions of the model. Comparing just the MOBILE5a and MOBILE6 on-road mobile source estimates indicates that MOBILE6 shows a relative reduction in CO emissions that is approximately twice as much as that seen with MOBILE5a.

IV. Final Action

We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the Act and EPA regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy. Therefore, we are approving Albuquerque's request to revise the MVEBs in its carbon monoxide maintenance SIP using MOBILE6, EPA's latest emission factor modeling program.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of thisFederal Registerpublication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on November 24, 2003 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by November 10, 2003. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in theFederal Registerinforming the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1.The Regional Office has established an official public rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office.The EPA has established an official public rulemaking file for this action under NM-46-1-7615. The official public file consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official record, the public rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air Planning Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202. The EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the rulemaking contact listed as the Further Information Contact to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays.

2.Copies of the State submittal are also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment at the local air agency.City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, 1 Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. Telephone 505-768-2600.

3.Electronic Access.You may access thisFederal Registerdocument electronically through the Regulations.gov Web site located athttp://www.regulations.govwhere you can find, review, and submit comments on Federal rules that have been published in theFederal Register, the Government's legal newspaper, which are open for comment.

The EPA's policy on public comments indicates that, whether submitted electronically or in paper, all comments will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, included the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number, NM-46-1-7615, in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

1.Electronically.If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures you can be identified as the source of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public file, and made available in EPA's electronic public record. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider you comment.

i.Electronic Mail (e-mail).Comments may be sent by e-mail to Thomas Diggs(Diggs.Thomas@epa.gov). The EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public file, and made available in EPA's electronic public record.

ii.Regulations.gov.Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to Regulations.gov athttp://www.regulations.gov,then select EPA at the top of the page and to “Go” button. The list of current EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

iii.Disk or CD ROM.You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to mailing address identified in Section 2, directly below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, Word, or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 8, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (Seesection 307(b)(2).)

Dated: September 30, 2003.Richard E. Greene,Regional Administrator, Region 6.40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:PART 52—[AMENDED]1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401et seq.

Subpart GG—New Mexico2. In § 52.1620, the table in paragraph (e) entitled “EPA approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures in the New Mexico SIP” is amended by adding one new entry to the end of the table to read as follows:§ 52.1620Identification of plan.

The document contains a correction to the final rule published in theFederal Registeron August 19, 2003. That rule makes technical changes to various provisions of chapter XII, title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, mainly in response to enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In addition, the rule revises any references to our location address or mailing address, as necessary due to TSA's physical move of its headquarters facilities and personnel from Washington, DC, to Arlington, Virginia. TSA inadvertently left out the correct mailing address for the Enforcement Docket in certain sections of part 1503. This document adds the correct mailing address to these sections.

On August 19, 2003, TSA published a final rule in theFederal Register(68 FR 49718), making technical changes to various provisions of chapter XII, title 49 (Transportation) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), mainly in response to enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA). In addition, the rule revises any references to our location address or mailing address, as necessary due to TSA's physical move of its headquarters facilites and personnel from Washington, DC, to Arlington, Virginia. TSA inadvertently left out the correct mailing address for the Enforcement Docket in certain sections of part 1503. This document adds the correct mailing address to these sections, changing the address from 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 to 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220.

Correction

In rule FR Doc. 03-20927, published on August 19, 2003 (68 FR 49718), make the following correction:

On page 49720, in the second column, add to the end of amendatory instruction 9. for §§ 1503.5(b)(2), 1503.16(f), 1503.209(b), 1503.210(a), and 1503-233(a) the following instructions: “and remove the words ‘400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590’ and add in their place, the words ‘601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220’.”

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notification of continuation of specifications for fishing year 2004.

SUMMARY:

NMFS announces that it will continue the 2003 quota specifications for the golden tilefish fishery for the 2004 fishing year. Accordingly, the total allowable landings (TAL) for the 2004 fishing year will remain at 1.995-million lb (905,172-kg). The intent of this action is to notify the public that there will be no change in the fishery specifications for tilefish for the fishing year beginning November 1, 2003.

The final rule implementing the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) became effective on November 1, 2001 (66 FR 49136, September 26, 2001). Pursuant to the tilefish regulations at 50 CFR 648.290, the Tilefish FMP Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) will meet after the completion of each stock assessment, or at the request of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) Chairman, to review tilefish landings information and any other relevant available data to determine if the annual quota requires modification to respond to changes to the stock's biological reference points or to ensurethat the rebuilding schedule is maintained. Additional management measures or revisions to existing measures could also be considered at this time to ensure that the TAL would not be exceeded. Furthermore, up to 3 percent of the TAL could be set aside for a given fishing year for the purpose of funding research. In the event that a new stock assessment is not completed or the Council Chairman does not request that the Monitoring Committee meet, the regulations further specify that the previous year's specifications will remain effective and that NMFS will issue notification in theFederal Registerto inform the public.

A new tilefish stock assessment is not scheduled to occur until 2004. Consequently, the Council Chairman did not request that the Monitoring Committee meet to determine if the annual quota requires modification to respond to stock conditions. Furthermore, the Council, at its August 2003 meeting, voted on research set-aside proposals that did not include a request for a tilefish research set-aside allocation for the upcoming fishing year. Therefore, NMFS informs the public that the 2003 quota specifications of 1.995-million lb (905,172-kg) for the golden tilefish fishery will remain in effect for the 2004 fishing year (November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004).

A recent decision in the case ofHadajav.Evansset aside the permit categories for the tilefish fishery. However, the TAL for the fishery is not affected by this decision. Accordingly, for the 2004 fishing year, unless otherwise modified by the Council and NMFS, the 1.995-million lb (905,172-kg) TAL is applicable to the entire fishery and will not be distributed among permit categories according to the regulations at § 648.290(b).

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Bombardier DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, that currently requires inspections to detect breakage in the struts of the rear mount strut assemblies on the left and right engine nacelles, and replacement of any broken struts. The existing AD also requires eventual replacement of all currently installed struts with new and/or reworked struts, as terminating action for the inspections. This action would require new repetitive inspections of the strut assemblies for cracking of struts replaced per the existing AD, and replacement of any cracked strut with a new, machined strut. This action also would change the applicability of the existing AD by adding certain airplanes and removing certain other airplanes, and would include an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of the engine rear mount struts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the nacelle and engine support structure. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES:

Comments must be received by November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-266-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov.Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-266-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York.

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-266-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On February 14, 1994, the FAA issued AD 94-04-09, amendment 39-8829 (59 FR 8393, February 22, 1994), applicable to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 and DHC-8-300 airplanes, to require inspections to detect breakage in the engine rear mount strut assemblies, and replacement of broken struts. That AD also requires eventual replacement of all currently installed struts with new and/or reworked struts, as terminating action for the inspections. That action was prompted by several reports of failure of the engine rear mount struts, due to fracture at one of the rosette welds on the shank of the strut where full weld depth was not achieved during manufacture. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent failure of the engine rear mount struts, which could reduce the structural integrity of the nacelle and engine support structure.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 94-04-09, we have been advised by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, of reports from the manufacturer and operators of Model DHC-8-100 and DHC-8-300 airplanes indicating that replacement struts installed per that AD have developed cracks. Therefore, the engine rear mount strut has been redesigned and is pressed fit assembled instead of welded which improves the endurance of the strut to prevent failure due to cracking and/or fracture.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-71-24, dated August 21, 2001, which describes procedures for replacing the existing rear mount struts in a nacelle with new, improved struts. TCCA previously issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2001-20, dated May 16, 2001, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

FAA's Conclusions

These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 94-04-09 to require new repetitive inspections of the strut assemblies for cracking of the struts replaced per the existing AD, and replacement of any cracked strut with a new, machined strut. This proposed AD also would change the applicability of the existing AD by adding certain airplanes and removing certain other airplanes, and would include an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Consistent with the findings of TCCA, this proposed AD would allow repetitive inspections to continue in lieu of the terminating action. In making this determination we considered that long-term continued operational safety in this case will be adequately ensured by repetitive inspections to find cracking before it represents a hazard to the airplane.

Changes to the Applicability of the Existing AD

This proposed AD would expand the applicability in the existing AD to include Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes; serial numbers 003 through 509 inclusive. Model DHC-8-102 and -103 series airplanes, serial numbers 003 through 310 inclusive; and Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -314 series airplanes, serial numbers 100 through 311 inclusive, were identified in the existing AD.

Additionally, this proposed AD would remove Model DHC-8-314 airplanes, which were added to the applicability of the existing AD but are not U.S. type-certificated.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 192 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 94-04-09 take approximately 16 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts are provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions is estimated to be $1,040 per airplane.

The new detailed inspection that is proposed in this AD action would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $12,480, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The optional terminating action, if done, would take approximately 16 work hours per strut to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $800 per strut. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the optional terminating action is estimated to be $1,840 per strut, per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the captionADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8829 (59 FR 8393, February 22, 1994), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:

To prevent failure of the engine rear mount struts on the left and right engine nacelles, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the nacelle and engine support structure, accomplish the following:

Repetitive Inspections

(a) Within 1,000 flight hours since installation of any new or reworked rear mount strut per the replacement required by paragraph (b) of AD 94-04-09, amendment 39-8829, or within 250 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later; do a detailed inspection for cracking of each rear mount strut in the left and right engine nacelles.

Note 1:

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-71-24, dated August 21, 2001, does not contain inspection procedures for the detailed inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD; however, the definition of a detailed inspection is specified in Note 2 of this AD.

Note 2:

For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”

(1) If no crack is found, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 250 flight hours, until accomplishment of paragraph (b) of this AD.

(2) If any crack is found, before further flight, replace the strut with a new, improved strut per Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-71-24, dated August 21, 2001. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours, for that nacelle only.

Optional Terminating Action

(b) Replacement of both rear mount struts in a nacelle with new, improved struts, by doing all the actions specified in the Job Set-up, Procedure, and Close-out sections of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-71-24, dated August 21, 2001, ends the repetitive inspections required by this AD for that nacelle only. Replacement of both rear mount struts on both the left and right engine nacelles ends the repetitive inspections required by this AD.

Parts Installation

(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install an engine rear mount strut, P/N 87110016-001, -003, -005, -007, -009, or -011, on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.

Note 3:

The subject of this AD is addressed in Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2001-20, dated May 16, 2001.

This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dassault Model Falcon 900EX series airplanes. This proposal would require modification of the front attachment area of the No. 2 engine. This action is necessary to prevent failure of the fail-safe lugs of the hoisting plate of the forward engine mount, and subsequent cracking of the pick-up folded sheet of the pylon forward rib. Such cracking could rupture the mast case box, which could result in loss of the two forward engine mounts and consequent separation of the engine from the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES:

Comments must be received by November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-283-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov.Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-283-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-283-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Dassault Model Falcon 900EX series airplanes. The DGAC advises that fatigue tests revealed that the fail-safe lugs of the forward engine mount may not have adequate fatigue strength. Failure of the lugs could result in cracking of the pick-up folded sheet of the pylon forward rib, and consequent rupture of the mast case box. Such conditions, if not corrected, could result in loss of the two forward engine mounts and consequent separation of the engine from the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F900EX-103, dated May 23, 2001, which describes procedures for modification of the No. 2 engine front attachment area. The modification involves replacing the No. 2 engine hoisting shield with a reinforced shield at the safety device attachments, and replacing the front attachment pickup doublers with new, thicker doublers. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued French airworthiness directive 2001-160-027(B), dated May 2, 2001, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.

FAA's Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements of Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

Difference Between Proposed AD and French Airworthiness Directive

The French airworthiness directive specifies a compliance time of “Before 3,750 flights since new,” for accomplishment of the modification of the front attachment area of the No. 2 engine. However, this proposed AD would require a compliance time of “Prior to the accumulation of 3,750 flight cycles since the date of issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs first.” This decision is based on our determination that “since new” may be interpreted differently by different operators. We find that our proposed terminology is generally understood within the industry, and records will always exist that establish these dates with certainty.

Cost Impact

We estimate that 36 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take about 85 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed modification, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $14,479 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $720,144, or $20,004 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the captionADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Dassault Aviation:Docket 2001-NM-283-AD.

Applicability:Model Falcon 900EX series airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 60 inclusive; certificated in any category; except those on which Dassault Modifications M2754 and M2925, identified in Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-103, dated May 23, 2001, have been accomplished.

Compliance:Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the fail-safe lugs of the forward engine mount, and consequent cracking of the pick-up folded sheet of the pylon forward rib, which could rupture the mast case box and result in loss of the two forward engine mounts and consequent separation of the engine from the airplane, accomplish the following:

Modification

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 3,750 flight cycles since the date of issuance of theoriginal Airworthiness Certificate or the date of issuance of the Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs first: Modify the front attachment area of the No. 2 engine by doing all the actions per Paragraphs 2.A. through 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-103, dated May 23, 2001.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.

Note 1:

The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2001-160-027(B), dated May 2, 2001.

This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This proposal would require a one-time inspection of the forward engine mount assemblies on the left and right engine nacelles for installation of pre-production engine mount assemblies, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent failure of the forward engine mount, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the nacelle and engine support structure. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES:

Comments must be received by November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-78-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov.Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2002-NM-78-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or ASCII text.

The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York.

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-78-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. TCCA advises that the manufacturer of the forward engine mount assembly has indicated that an unapproved pre-production engine mount assembly was found installed in place of a production engine mount assembly. Pre-production engine mount assemblies are more susceptible to fatigue cracking than production engine mount assemblies. In addition, there is a possibility that pre-production assemblies having part number (P/N) 96042-07 are incorrectly marked with P/N 96042-09, which is the P/N on the production assemblies. Operation with pre-production engine mount assemblies could result in failure of the forward engine mount, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the nacelle and engine support structure.

Explanation of Relevant Service Information

Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A84-71-06, Revision “A,” dated December 5, 2001, which describes procedures for a visual inspection to determine the P/N and configuration of the forward engine mount assemblies on the left and right engine nacelles. If the inspection shows that any pre-production engine mount assembly is installed, the service bulletin describes procedures for follow-on corrective actions for that assembly.Those actions include repetitive detailed visual inspections of each assembly for cracking at intervals of 250 flight cycles, and replacement of the pre-production engine mount assembly with a production engine mount assembly before further flight if cracking is found. If no cracking is found, the service bulletin specifies that the pre-production engine mount assembly may remain in service for up to 1,000 flight cycles after the initial inspection, and then reworked or replaced with a production engine mount assembly. If both engine mounts on the same nacelle have the pre-production configuration, the service bulletin specifies that one pre-production engine mount assembly must be replaced with a production engine mount assembly before further flight. The service bulletin also includes a repair letter issued by the engine manufacturer which contains rework procedures for the pre-production engine mount assembly. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.

TCCA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-07, dated January 21, 2002, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

FAA's Conclusions

These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.

Differences Between Canadian Airworthiness Directive, Service Bulletin, and Proposed Rule

The service bulletin and Canadian airworthiness directive specify a visual inspection to determine the P/N and configuration of the forward engine mount assemblies, but this proposed rule would require a general visual inspection. A note has been added to the proposed rule to define that inspection.

The service bulletin and Canadian airworthiness directive also specify a detailed visual inspection for cracking if a pre-production engine mount is installed, but this proposed rule would require a detailed inspection. A note has been added to the proposed rule to define that inspection.

Cost Impact

We estimate that 11 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,430, or $130 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the captionADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:

To prevent failure of the forward engine mount, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the nacelle and engine support structure, accomplish the following:

Inspection

(a) Within 100 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the forward engine mount assemblies on the left and right engine nacelles for installation of pre-production assemblies (determine the part number and configuration for each assembly), per the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-71-06, Revision “A,” dated December 5, 2001. If no pre-production engine mount assembly is installed, no further action is required by this AD.

Note 1:

For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in theinspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”

Follow-On Corrective Actions

(b) If any pre-production engine mount assembly is installed, do all the applicable follow-on corrective actions (including repetitive detailed inspections for cracking, and rework or replacement of the pre-production engine mount assembly, if necessary) per all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, at the applicable times specified in Paragraph I., Part D., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin. Any replacement due to cracking must be done before further flight.

Note 2:

For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”

Optional Terminating Action for Follow-On Repetitive Inspections

(c) Installation of production engine mount assemblies on all four forward engine mounts ends the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.

Part Installation

(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an engine mount assembly having a pre-production configuration and/or part number 96042-07 on any airplane, unless the assembly has been reworked per Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-71-06, Revision “A,” dated December 5, 2001.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.

Note 3:

The subject of this AD is addressed in Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2002-07, dated January 21, 2002.

The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-46-500TP airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to replace all electronic control modules in the airplane electrical system with newly designed modules. This proposed AD is the result of reports of smoke in the cockpit and loss of electrical systems function. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent short circuit failure and electrical arcing of the electronic control modules, which could result in loss of the electrical systems components or burning of wiring insulation and cause smoke in the cockpit. Such a condition could lead to the inability to properly control the airplane.

•By e-mail:9-ACE-7-Docket@faa.gov.Comments sent electronically must contain “Docket No. 2003-CE-32-AD” in the subject line. If you send comments electronically as attached electronic files, the files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII.

You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; facsimile: (772) 978-6584.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Comments InvitedHow Do I Comment on This Proposed AD?

We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed underADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-32-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it. We will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you.

Are There Any Specific Portions of This Proposed AD I Should Pay Attention To?

We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD in light of those comments and contacts.

DiscussionWhat Events Have Caused This Proposed AD?

We have received several reports that a condition exists in some of the electrical control modules in the airplane electrical system.

FAA analysis indicates that there is inadequate clearance and inadequate electrical isolation between the load terminal and metal case. The modules load terminal is cutting through the rubber insulating grommet and contacting the module's metal case. This causes the electrical short circuit and electrical arcing.

The following electrical system components are potentially affected by this condition:

If not corrected, short circuit failure and electrical arcing of the electronic control modules could result in loss of the electrical systems components or burning of wiring insulation and cause smoke in the cockpit. Such a condition could lead to the inability to properly control the airplane.

We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing AD action.

What Would This Proposed AD Require?

This proposed AD would require you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin.

How Does the Revision to 14 CFR Part 39 Affect This Proposed AD?

On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Costs of ComplianceHow Many Airplanes Would This Proposed AD Impact?

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 130 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What Would Be the Cost Impact of This Proposed AD on Owners/Operators of the Affected Airplanes?

We estimate the following costs to accomplish this proposed modification:

Labor costParts costTotal cost per airplaneTotal cost on

U.S. operators

22 × $65 per hour = $1,430Parts will be covered under warranty by the manufacturer$1,430$1,430 × 130 = $185,900Regulatory FindingsWould This Proposed AD Impact Various Entities?

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Would This Proposed AD Involve a Significant Rule or Regulatory Action?

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed underADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2003-CE-32-AD” in your request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.:Docket No. 2003-CE-32-ADWhen Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD?

(a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by December 9, 2003.

What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action?

(b) None.

What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD?

(c) This AD affects Model PA-46-500TP airplanes, serial numbers 4697001 through 4697140 and 4697142 through 4697153, that are certificated in any category.

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

(d) This AD is the result of reports of smoke in the cockpit and loss of electrical system functions. We are issuing this AD to prevent short circuit failure of the electronic control modules, which could result in loss of the electrical system components orburning of wiring insulation and cause smoke in the cockpit. Such a condition could lead to the inability to properly control the airplane.

Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this ADPer the instructions in Piper Service Bulletin No. 1132, dated June 4, 2003.(2) Return the circuit breaker panels and the remote modules identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD to the manufacturer listed in paragraph (g) of this AD for modificationPrior to further flight after doing the actions required in paragraph (e)(1) of this ADPer the instructions in Piper Service Bulletin No. 1132, dated June 4, 2003.(3) Visually inspect all remaining exposed wires and equipment for evidence of heat damage and repair any damage foundPrior to further flight after doing the actions required in paragraph (c)(1) of this ADPer the instructions in Piper Service Bulletin No. 1132, dated June 4, 2003.(4) Install the modified circuit breaker panel assemblies and the remote modules received from the manufacturerPrior to further flight after doing the actions required in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of this ADUse the instructions in Piper Service Bulletin No. 1132, dated June 4, 2003.(5) Do not install any part referenced in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD unless it has been modified per Piper Service Bulletin No. 1132, dated June 4, 2003As of the effective date of this ADNot applicable.What About Alternative Methods of Compliance?

We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed underADDRESSES.Include “AD Docket No. 2003-NE-31-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. If a person contacts us verbally, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.

We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and your suggestions to improve the clarity of our communications that affect you. You may get more information about plain language athttp://www.faa.gov/languageandhttp://www.plainlanguage.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.SeeADDRESSESfor the location.

Discussion

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the U.K., recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on RR models RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 turbofan engines with radial drive steady bearing P/N LK76084 installed. The CAA received reports of seven low time failures of radial drive steady bearings within a four-month period. These failures were not detected through routine magnetic chip detector monitoring because the failed bronze bearing cages are nonmagnetic, and the cage failure mode is rapid.

Relevant Service Information

We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of RR Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. RB.211-72-C815, Revision 3, dated October 5, 2000, that describes procedures for scavenge filter inspection, and if necessary, radial drive steady bearing inspection for failure debris. The CAA classified this MSB as mandatory and issued airworthiness directive 005-07-99, dated July 30, 1999, in order to ensure the airworthiness of these RR models RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 turbofan engines in the U.K.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Manufacturer's Service Information

Although RR MSB No. RB.211-72-C815, Revision 3, dated October 5, 2000, Accomplishment Instructions require an engine acceptance inspection, this proposal does not require an engine acceptance inspection because pre-Service Bulletin RB.211-72-C925 new or low time radial drive steady bearings are no longer available. Also, instead of the MSB requirement that inspections be triggered when a continuous illumination of the filter blockage warning light occurs, this proposal adds a repetitive inspection at 500 engine operating hour intervals after initial inspection to coincide with every airframe “A” check.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

These RR models RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 turbofan engines, manufactured in the U.K., are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA's findings, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require initial and repetitive visual inspections of the engine oil scavenge filter for evidence of radial drive steady bearing failure, and if necessary, radial drive steady bearing inspection for damage and evidence of bearing debris. Radial drive steady bearings with engine operating hours of 3,000 or more are not affected by this proposed AD. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions.

Changes to 14 CFR Part 39—Effect on the Proposed AD

On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Costs of Compliance

There are about 1,078 RR model RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 288 of these model engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD. We also estimate that it would take about four work hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required replacement scavenge filters would cost about $100 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of one inspection per year in the proposed AD, to U.S. operators to be $97,920.

Regulatory Findings

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposal and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed underADDRESSES.Include “AD Docket No. 2003-NE-31-AD” in your request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13[Amended]

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Rolls-Royce plc:Docket No. 2003-NE-31-AD.Comments Due Date

(a) The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by December 8, 2003.

Affected ADs

(b) None.

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) models RB211-535C-37, RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 turbofan engines with radial drive steady bearing part number LK76084 installed with fewer than 3,000 engine operating hours accumulated on the bearing. Radial drive steady bearings with engine operating hours of 3,000 or more are not affected by this proposed AD. These engines are installed on, but not limited to Boeing 757 and Tupolev Tu204 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of seven low time failures of radial drive steady bearings within a four-month period. We are issuing this AD to prevent a possible dual-engine in-flight shutdown caused by radial drive steady bearing failure.

Compliance

(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.

Initial Visual Inspection

(f) Perform an initial inspection of the engine scavenge filter for evidence of radial drive steady bearing failure, within 300 engine operating hours or 45 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, and replace parts as necessary. Use paragraph 3.B. of Accomplishment Instructions of RR Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. RB.211-72-C815, Revision 3, dated October 5, 2000, to do the inspection and parts replacements.

Repetitive Visual Inspections

(g) Thereafter, for radial drive steady bearings with less than 3,000 engine operating hours, perform repetitive inspections of the engine scavenge filter for evidence of radial drive steady bearing failure, at intervals not to exceed 500 engine operating hours since the previous inspection, and replace parts as necessary. Use paragraph 3.C. of Accomplishment Instructions of RR MSB No. RB.211-72-C815, Revision 3, dated October 5, 2000, to do the inspections and parts replacements.

Rejected Bearings

(h) Send rejected bearings, together with the associated scavenge filter, to Rolls-Royce for analysis.

Reporting Requirements

(i) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the reporting requirements specified in paragraph 3. of RR MSB No. RB.211-72-C815, Revision 3, dated October 5, 2000, and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(j) You must request AMOCs as specified in 14 CFR 39.19. All AMOCs must be approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.

Material Incorporated by Reference

(k) You must use Rolls-Royce plc Mandatory Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-C815, Revision 3, dated October 5, 2000, to perform the inspections and parts replacements required by this AD. Approval of incorporation by reference from the Office of the Federal Register is pending.

Related Information

(l) CAA airworthiness directive 005-07-99, dated July 30, 1999, also addresses the subject of this AD.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its loan guaranty regulations by making two changes to conform to the Veterans Benefits Act of 2002. To implement section 303 of the law, VA proposes to incorporate into the regulations a new authority for hybrid adjustable rate mortgages. This will allow VA to guarantee loans with interest rates that remain fixed for a period of not less than the first three years of the loan, after which the rate can be adjusted annually. To implement section 307 of the law, VA proposes to increase the fee paid for assuming a VA guaranteed loan from .50 percent to 1.00 percent of the loan amount. The fee increase is already being carried out under the authority of the statute.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Mail or hand deliver written comments to: Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or fax comments to (202) 273-9026; or e-mail comments toOGCRegulations@mail.va.gov. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AL54.” All written comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address in the Office of Regulations Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 273-9515 for an appointment.

Under 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, VA guarantees loans made by private lenders to veterans for the purchase, construction, and refinancing of homes owned and occupied by veterans. Prior to fiscal year 1993, VA had authority to guarantee fixed rate mortgages only. During fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995 VA was authorized to guarantee loans with adjustable interest rates. These rates were adjusted on an annual basis, except that the first adjustment had to occur no sooner than 12 months nor later than 18 months from the date of the borrower's first mortgage payment. Authority for these loans expired at the end of fiscal year 1995.

Section 303 of Pub. L. 107-330 authorizes a demonstration project during fiscal years 2004 and 2005, whereby VA will guarantee loans with hybrid adjustable interest rates. Effective October 1, 2003, or as soon thereafter as practicable, VA proposes to guarantee loans that have interest rate adjustment provisions that (1) specify an initial rate that is fixed for a period of not less than the first three years ofthe loan; and (2) provide for an initial adjustment in the interest rate at the end of the initial fixed rate period. While the initial adjustment may not occur until 36 months after the first payment is due, it is not required to occur prior to any set date.

In connection with its previous adjustable rate mortgage program VA issued regulations which are currently at 38 CFR 36.4311. VA proposes to amend that section to provide for a hybrid adjustable rate mortgage with adjustment provisions that conform to the requirements of section 303 of Pub. L. 107-330.

B. Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would make changes to the time at which the initial interest rate must occur and minor changes to the wording of the regulations. Except for these changes the proposed regulations are the same as those for the previous adjustable rate mortgage program. They provide that the interest rate adjustments: (1) Correspond to changes in the weekly average yield on one year Treasury bills adjusted to a constant maturity; (2) be made by adjusting the monthly payment on an annual basis; (3) be limited with respect to any single annual interest rate adjustment, to a maximum increase or decrease of 1 percentage point; and (4) be limited, over the term of the mortgage, to a maximum increase of 5 percentage points above the initial contract interest rate.

Because the new program is proposed to become effective October 1, 2003, VA proposes to add the words “Effective October 1, 2003,” to the beginning of the introductory text of paragraph (d) of § 36.4311.

VA proposes to change the time at which the initial interest rate adjustment must occur, as required by Pub. L. 107-330. Section 36.4311(d)(2) provides “that the first adjustment may occur no sooner than 12 months nor later than 18 months from the date of the borrower's first mortgage payment.” This proposed rule would amend the first sentence of this paragraph by changing “12 months” to “36 months” and by deleting the words “nor later than 18 months.”

Because VA no longer sets maximum interest rates this proposed rule would remove from paragraph (d)(4) of § 36.4311 the second sentence which reads, “The rate must be reflective of adjustable rate lending.” The interest rate on all VA loans is negotiated between the borrower and the lender.

VA proposes to change language concerning the pre-loan disclosure in paragraph (d)(6) of § 36.4311. This proposed rule would remove the second part of the first sentence, which states that the lender must explain the nature of the obligation “no later than on the date upon which the lender provides the prospective borrower with an application,” and in its place add “at the time of loan application.” This change is necessary to conform with industry practice whereby lenders make a copy of the loan application available to the borrower for review prior to the actual beginning of the loan application process. This proposed rule would also remove the language that states a copy of the signed certification shall be “included in the loan submission to VA” and in its place add “furnished to VA upon request.” This change is necessary to conform to current practice whereby paper copies of loan application papers are retained by lenders until such time as they are requested by VA.

The VA guaranteed hybrid adjustable rate mortgage with the above features will be similar to the adjustable rate mortgages eligible for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance. This should facilitate pooling of these mortgages together in Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) mortgage-backed securities pools.

Because there has been no activity in the manufactured home loan program for the past several years, this pilot program for VA hybrid adjustable rate mortgages will not be made available for manufactured homes under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3712. However, manufactured housing which qualifies as conventional housing under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3710 (a)(9) will be eligible.

Section 307 of Pub. L. 107-330 increases the fee payable to VA by a person assuming a VA guaranteed loan from .50 percent to 1.00 percent of the loan amount. VA is making conforming changes to 38 CFR 36.4312 to reflect the increase. Under the provisions of Pub. L. 107-330, this increase is effective for the period beginning December 13, 2002, and ending September 30, 2003.

Administrative Procedure Act

Section 6(a)(1) of Executive Order 12866 indicates that, in most cases, a comment period should be “not less than 60 days.” However, section 303 of Pub. L. 107-330 only permits a limited, 2 year test program for Hybrid ARMs between October 1, 2003 and September 30, 2005. We believe that this proposed rule is essential to the efficient and consistent implementation of the Hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage demonstration program created by that section. In order to avoid delays in implementing this program, we believe it is important that final regulations be published expeditiously. For this reason, we have shortened the comment period for this rulemaking action to 30 days.

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any given year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

Executive Order 12866

This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The addition of hybrid adjustable rate mortgages will benefit lenders by providing an additional loan product for use in making VA-guaranteed loans. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program numbers applicable to this rule are 64.114 and 64.119.

d. In paragraph (d)(5) introductory text, removing “no later than on the date upon which the lender provides the prospective borrower with a”, and adding, in its place, “at the time of”; and by removing, “included in the loan submission to VA”, and adding, in its place, “furnished to VA upon request”; and

e. Revising the authority citation at the end of the section.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 36.4311Interest rates.

(d) Effective October 1, 2003, adjustable rate mortgage loans which comply with the requirements of this paragraph (d) are eligible for guaranty.

(4)Initial rate and magnitude of changes.The initial contract interest rate of an adjustable rate mortgage shall be agreed upon by the lender and the veteran. Annual adjustments in the interest rate shall correspond to annual changes in the interest rate index, subject to the following conditions and limitations:

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3707A, 3710)

3. In § 36.4312, paragraph (e)(2), in the first sentence, is amended by removing “one-half of”; and by revising the authority citation at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

The EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for Bernalillo County, New Mexico, which is a carbon monoxide maintenance area. This SIP revision was submitted to EPA by the Governor of New Mexico on May 15, 2003. More specifically, EPA is proposing approval of the county's revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for carbon monoxide (CO) for 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2006. This budget was developed using EPA's latest emissions modeling program, MOBILE6. This submittal updates the maintenance plan by establishing new transportation conformity MVEBs for use by the Mid-Region Council of Governments, the area's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). These budgets will continue to maintain the total on-road mobile source emissions for the area at or below the attainment level for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Comments on this action may submitted either by mail or electronically. Written comments should be mailed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L),U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically via email toDiggs.Thomas@epa.govor tohttp://www.regulations.govwhich is an alternative method for submitted electronic comments to EPA. To submit comments, please follow the detailed instructions described in the “Final Action” section of the direct final rule which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of thisFederal Register.

In the Final Rules section of thisFederal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comment. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

For additional information, see the Direct Final rule which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of thisFederal Register.

In response to public request, EPA is extending the comment period for its proposed action to designate dredged material disposal sites in the Central and Western Long Island Sound, Connecticut. EPA is extending the comment period by an additional 21 days, announcing the addition of a public hearing and correcting site location information in the proposed rulemaking published on September 12, 2003 (68 FR 53687-53696).

DATES:

Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on or before November 17, 2003. Public comments on this document are requested and will be considered before taking final action on this designation.

EPA is extending the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed designation of dredged material disposal sites in the Central and Western Long Island Sound, Connecticut, and announcing the addition of a public hearing.

Corrections

The September 12, 2003 document (68 FR 53687-53696), is corrected on page 53688, 53689, 53690 and 53695 as follows:

1. On page 53688 in the preamble, first column, following the captionDATES:, the language is corrected to read: “ Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on or before November 17, 2003. The additional public hearing date is November 13, 2003 from 4p.m.-8p.m.”. On page 53689 the language is corrected to read as follows: “Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on or before November 17, 2003.”.

2. On page 53688, in the preamble, first column, following the captionADDRESSES:, Public Hearing Locations section, the language is corrected to read: “The Public Hearing locations are: 1. September 30, 2003—New York at SUNY, Stony Brook, NY 11794-1603—Charles B. Wang Asian-American Center 2. October 1, 2003 and November 13, 2003—Westin Stamford, One First Stamford Place, Stamford, CT 06902.”.

3. On page 53688, in the preamble, first column, following the captionSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:, the language is corrected to include the addition of libraries and is corrected to read: “Public Review of Documents: The file supporting this proposed designation is available for inspection at the following locations: In person. The Proposed Rule and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which includes the Site Management and Monitoring Plans (Appendix J), are available for inspection at the following locations: A. EPA New England Library, 11th Floor, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CWQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. For access to the documents, call Peg Nelson at (617) 918-1991 between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Thursday, excluding legal holidays, for an appointment. B. Mamaroneck Public Library Inc., 136 Prospect Ave., Mamaroneck, NY. C. Port Jefferson Free Library, 100 Thompson Street, Port Jefferson, NY. D. E. Bridgeport Public Library, 925 Broad Street, Bridgeport, CT. E. Milford City Library, 57 New Haven Ave., Milford, CT. F. New Haven Free Public Library, 133 Elm Street, New Haven, CT. G. New London Public Library, 63 Huntington Street, New London, CT. H. Norwalk Public Library, 1 Belden Ave., Norwalk, CT. I. Acton Public Library, 60 Old Boston Post Road, Old Saybrook, CT. J. Ferguson Library, 752 High Ridge Road, Stamford, CT. K. Boston Public Library, 700 Boylston Street, Copley Square, Boston, MA . L. New York State Library, Cultural Education Center, 6th Floor, Empire State Center, Albany, NY. M. Information Service Division, CT State Library, 231 Capital Ave., Hartford, CT. Electronically. You also may review and/or obtain electronic copies of these documents and various support documents from the EPA home page at theFederal Register,http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/,or on the EPA New England Region's home page athttp://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/lisdreg/.”

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA); request for written comments; notice of public scoping meetings.

SUMMARY:

NMFS announces its intent to prepare an EA and to hold scoping meetings to inform interested parties of the potential impacts on the human environment of the implementation of the regulatory changes resulting from the recently extended Treaty on Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America (Treaty). As part of this process, NMFS intends to conduct two scoping meetings to allow stakeholders the opportunity to express their views regarding information that NMFS should consider in preparing the EA for the implementation of the regulatory changes required under the recently re-negotiated Treaty.

DATES:

The dates for the public scoping meetings are:

1. October 24, 2003, in San Diego, California.

2. November 13, 2003, in Pago Pago, American Samoa.

ADDRESSES:

The scoping meeting locations are:

1. Embassy Suites Hotel, San Diego Bay, 4 p.m. - 10 p.m.

2. Utulei Convention Center, 4 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Written comments on the issues, range of alternatives, impacts that should be discussed in the EA, and requests to be included on a mailing list of persons interested in the EA should be sent to Raymond Clarke, International Affairs Division, Pacific Islands Regional Office, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814. Comments may be sent to the Regional Office via facsimile (fax) at 808-973-2941 and must be received by December 8, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Karnella or Raymond Clarke, telephone (808) 973-2937.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Background

The Treaty entered into force in 1988. The Treaty is between the 16 members of the Pacific Islands Forum, an inter-governmental body that represents 16 sovereign Pacific Island Countries (PICs), and the United States of America. After an initial 5-year agreement, the Treaty was renewed in 1993 allowing access for up to 50 U.S. purse seiners (with an option for 5 more if agreed to by all parties) to the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of the following countries: Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Samoa. The Treaty Area is approximately 10 million square miles in the western and central Pacific Ocean.

The Treaty sets out the terms and conditions associated with certain aspects of U.S. purse seine vessel operations and obtaining access to the PICs= EEZs. Treaty terms and conditions include, but are not limited to, various fees, area closures, reporting, and observer coverage requirements. Additionally, the United States Government has certain Treaty obligations that include, but are not limited to, administrative requirements, economic assistance fees, as well as the collection, compilation, and summarization of fishery related data.

Commencing in 2000, the U.S. and the PICs entered into a series of negotiations that led to an agreement to amend and extend the Treaty for 10 years or until June 14, 2012. The agreement recognizes that all parties involved in the negotiations were required to obtain the consent of their various legislative and/or executive bodies before the Treaty entered into law. The parties agreed to abide by the negotiated terms and conditions of the extension of the Treaty after June 15, 2003 B or when key provisions of the previous Treaty expired. This allowed the U.S. purse seine fleet to continue to operate and allowed the PICs to continue to benefit from the economic assistance associated with the Treaty. As of this writing all the parties have not ratified the re-negotiated Treaty.

Under the current agreement, the U.S. is obligated to pay an annual amount of $21 million. The U.S. Government annually provides $18 million under a technical assistance agreement, and the U.S. purse seine tuna industry, provides the additional $3 million. These funds are paid to the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) located in Honiara, Solomon Islands. Under the current (re-negotiated) Treaty, the U.S. is now limited to 40 vessels (and up to 5 additional vessels operating under joint venture agreements with PICs).

The changes to the operational requirements of the Treaty include: recognition of electronic media as an allowed method for meeting reporting requirements and information transmittal by the purse seine vessels, the use of electronic vessel monitoring systems while vessels operate in the Treaty Area, modifications by certain PICs to the areas in which fishing is permitted by U.S. purse seine vessels and correcting an unintended consequence of the drafting of the Treaty that prohibited pelagic longlining by U.S. vessels on the high seas areas (areas outside the 200- mile EEZ of any country) within the Treaty Area.

NEPA Process

The authorization by NMFS to the FFA to provide U.S. purse seine vessels a license to fish in the Treaty Area, which includes access to the EEZs of PICs is a Federal action. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal agencies must insure that analysis of the environmental impacts of a range of alternative proposals is available to public officials and citizens before Federal decisions are made and before Federal actions are taken. The purpose is to promote management and policy decisions that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, stimulate the health and welfare of the public, and enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation. A key element of the NEPA process is the identification of the proposed action as well as a set of alternatives to the proposed action. The NEPA process, involving public review of the alternatives, is designed to provide the agency with information that enables identification of issues, concerns and reasonable alternatives. The proposed action now under consideration and the subject of this EA is the FFA's authorization of U.S. purse seine vessels to operate in the EEZs of certain PICs under the terms and conditions of the Treaty as amended and extended until June 2012.

NMFS is accepting written comments on the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts it should consider in the EA. These comments will be part of the public record.

Alternatives

At present the range of alternatives to be considered in the EA will probably include, but would not be limited to:

NMFS does not propose a regulation to implement the changes proposed for the Third Extension of the Treaty (No Action Alternative).Under this alternative, the Treaty would continue in the manner it has since June 15, 2003, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on May 9, 2002. That non-legally binding document represents the political commitment of the signatories to apply the amendments to the Treaty and Annexes that were not in force by June 15, 2003.

NMFS proposes a regulation to implement the changes proposed for the Third Extension of the Treaty.Under this alternative, the U.S. would implement the regulatory changes that have been agreed upon for the third extension of the Treaty. No new legislation would be required for the United States to implement such changes. Regulations would, however, have to be promulgated to require that U.S. tuna purse seine vessels licensed to fish under the Treaty comply with the prescribed vessel monitoring system (VMS) procedures and requirements. This action would implement VMS requirements that are consistent with FFA specifications and be applicable to persons and vessels subject to the Treaty and the jurisdiction of the United States. Operators wishing to fish under the Treaty would be required to install, carry, activate and operate, repair or replace a VMS unit while in the Treaty Area. This alternative also includes modifications to the regulations that would allow U.S. longline vessels to fish on the high seas within the Treaty Area, as well as modifications to the areas of fishing in the EEZs of the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea.

NMFS recommends that the U.S. withdraw from the Treaty.In effecting withdrawal, the U.S. would first submit an instrument signifying withdrawal to the depositary, after which it would become effective 1 year later. The decision to withdraw from the Treaty could be taken if the U.S. believed it was no longer in the nation=s best interest to continue participation. There are several scenarios under which such a withdrawal might occur.

The termination of U.S. Purse Seine industry participation in the Treaty.The organization of the Treaty provides the potential that the Treaty could continue without the participation of the U.S. purse seine industry. For instance, the United States Government could continue to provide economic assistance to the PICs called for under the Treaty. This economic assistance is now the only significant source of U.S. economicsupport to the region (outside payments made to the Compact States of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau).

Other alternatives that may be explored may address non-target, associated and dependent species related to purse seine fishing. Comments on these alternatives, as well as issues and concerns are invited.

Additional Information Available

Information on the text of the Treaty, the authorizing legislation or the implementing regulations are available from the NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Regional Office.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Raymond Clarke, telephone 808-973-2937, fax 808-973-2941 at least 5 days before the scheduled meeting date.

Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of Environmental Assessment.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, (Services) announce the reopening of the comment period for the proposed joint counterpart regulations and the availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Healthy Forests Initiative Counterpart Regulations. The Services are evaluating the environmental effects of establishing counterpart regulations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.) (ESA). These counterpart regulations are being proposed in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS) and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS) (jointly, Action Agencies). The proposal supports the President's Healthy Forests initiative and is intended to streamline ESA section 7 consultations on proposed projects that support the National Fire Plan (NFP).

We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated Environmental Assessment. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule that was published in theFederal Registeron June 5, 2003 (68 FR 33805), need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this reopened comment period and will be fully considered in the final rule.

DATES:

Comments on this environmental assessment or the associated proposed rule must be received by November 10, 2003 to be considered in the final decision.

ADDRESSES:

Electronic copies of this Environmental Assessment or the associated proposed rule may be obtained from the USFWS World Wide Web Consultation Home Page at:http://endangered.fws.gov/consultations/forestplan.html.Written copies of this Environmental Assessment or the associated proposed rule may be obtained from the Chief of the Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Planning, Recovery, and State Grants, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203, or the Chief of the Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

Comments or materials concerning the Environmental Assessment or the associated proposed rule should be sent to the Chief, Division of Consultation, Habitat Conservation Planning, Recovery and State Grants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Comments can also be accepted if submitted via e-mail tohealthyforests@fws.gov.Comments and materials received in conjunction with this rulemaking will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

In response to several years of catastrophic wildland fires throughout the United States culminating in the particularly severe fire season of 2000, when over 6.5 million acres of wildland areas burned, President Clinton directed the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to develop a report outlining a new approach to managing wildland fires and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. The report, entitled Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, was issued September 8, 2000. This report set forth ways to reduce the impacts of fires on rural communities, a short-term plan for rehabilitation of fire-damaged ecosystems, and ways to limit the introduction of invasive species and address natural restoration processes. The report, and the accompanying budget requests, strategies, plans, and direction, have become known as the NFP. The NFP is intended to reduce risk to communities and natural resources from wildland fires through rehabilitation, restoration and maintenance of fire-adapted ecosystems, and by the reduction of accumulated fuels or highly combustible fuels on forests, woodlands, grasslands, and rangelands.

In August 2002, during another severe wildland fire season in which over 7.1 million acres of wildlands burned, President Bush announced the Healthy Forests Initiative. The initiative was intended to accelerate implementation of the fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration goals of the NFP in order to minimize the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires by reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles thathave at times delayed and frustrated active land management activities. As part of the initiative, the agencies were tasked with streamlining the section 7 consultation process for projects implementing the NFP.

The Action Agencies published a proposed rule to establish Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act section 7 regulations on June 5, 2003 (68 FR 33805). The proposed counterpart regulations, authorized in general at 50 CFR 402.04, will provide an optional alternative to the existing section 7 consultation process described in 50 CFR part 402, subparts A and B. The counterpart regulations complement the general consultation regulations in part 402 by providing an alternative process for completing section 7 consultation for agency projects that authorize, fund, or carry out actions that support the NFP.

In the Environmental Assessment, we considered three alternatives that would streamline the consultation process. The Memorandum of Understanding/Programmatic consultation alternative was eliminated from further consideration. The no action alternative would keep the current section 7 consultation process in place. The preferred alternative is to finalize the proposed counterpart regulation. The proposed action is to establish an alternative consultation process that would eliminate the need to conduct informal consultation and eliminate the requirement to obtain written concurrence from the applicable Service for those NFP actions that the Action Agency determines are “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) any listed species or designated critical habitat.

Authority:

The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for the National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs.

DATES:

Comments must be received by December 8, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice to Whitney A. Rick, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 0224, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224, telephone (202) 720-2259 and facsimile (202) 690-1718. Comments should be submitted in triplicate. Comments may also be submitted electronically tocottoncomments@usda.gov.All comments should reference the docket number and page number of this issue of theFederal Register. All comments received will be made available for public inspection at Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2641-S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250 during regular business hours. A copy of this notice may be found athttp://www.usda.gov/cotton/rulemaking.htm.

Type of Request:Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract:National research and promotion programs are designed to strengthen the position of a commodity in the marketplace, maintain and expand existing domestic and foreign markets, and develop new uses and markets for specified agricultural commodities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has the responsibility for implementing and overseeing programs for a variety of commodities including cotton, dairy, eggs, beef, pork, soybeans, honey, potatoes, watermelons, mushrooms, hass avocados, popcorn, and peanuts. The enabling legislation includes the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 [7 U.S.C. 2901-2911]; Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966 [7 U.S.C. 2101-2118]; the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 [7 U.S.C. 4501-4514]; the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 [7 U.S.C. 6401-6417]; the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C. 2701-2718]; the Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act of 1985 [7 U.S.C. 4801-4819]; the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C. 6301-6311]; the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, as amended [7 U.S.C. 4601-4613]; the Potato Research and Promotion Act [7 U.S.C. 2611-2627]; the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act [7 U.S.C. 4901-4916]; the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act [7 U.S.C. 7801-7813]; the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990 [7 U.S.C. 6101-6112]; the Popcorn Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act [7 U.S.C. 7481-7491]; and the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 [7 U.S.C. 7411-7425].

These programs carry out projects relating to research, consumer information, advertising, sales promotion, producer information, market development, and product research to assist, improve, or promote the marketing, distribution, and utilization of their respective commodities. Approval of the programs is required through referendum of those who would be covered. Industry boards administer the programs. These boards usually composed of producer, handler, processor, and in some cases, importer and public members, are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to administer the programs. The funding for such programs is from assessments on designated industry segments. The appointed boards are responsible for collecting assessments from the affected persons covered under these programs.

The Secretary also approves the boards' budgets, plans, and projects. These responsibilities have been delegated to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The applicable commodity program areas within AMS have direct oversight of the respective programs.

The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intents of the various Acts authorizing such programs, thereby providing a means of administering the programs. The objective in carrying out this responsibility includes assuring the following: (1) Funds are collected and properly accounted for; (2) expenditures of all funds are for the purposes authorized by the enabling legislation; and (3) the board's administration of the programs conforms to USDA policy. The applicable commodity programs within AMS have direct oversight of these freestanding programs. The forms covered under this collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the respective orders, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intents of the Acts as expressed in the orders. The information collected is used only by authorized employees of the various boards and authorized employees of USDA.

The boards administering the various programs utilize a variety of forms to carry out the responsibilities. Such forms may include reports concerning status information such as handler andimporter reports; transaction reports; exemption from assessment forms and reimbursement forms; forms and information concerning referenda including ballots; forms and informaiton concerning board nominations and selection and acceptance statements; certification of industry organizations; and recordkeeping requirements. The forms and information covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the programs and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the applicable authorities.

Estimate of Burden:Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .08 hours per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:Estimated total annual burden is 350,920 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Whitney A. Rick, Research and Promotion Staff, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 0224, Room 2641-S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, DC 20250-0224, or by e-mail atcottoncomments@usda.gov. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

AMS is committed to implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which provides for the use of information resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations, including providing the public with the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the extent possible.

The USDA Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal action to treat forested stands, using harvest methods to decrease tree density, increase representation of fire-adapted tree species, as well as decrease existing and activity fuel levels. The connected actions of log hauling will require constructing new road and temporary road, and maintaining and reconstructing existing road. This proposed action would implement a Road Access Travel Management Plan that would close and decommission roads. The alternatives will include the proposed action, no action, and additional alternatives that respond to issues identified during scoping. The agency will give notice of the full environmental analysis and decision making process so interested and affected people may participate and contribute to the final decision.

DATES:

Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by November 15, 2003.

The alternatives being considered were proposed in the original Crawford Vegetative Management Environmental Assessment (EA). The Decision Notice, which selected Alternative 3 was signed on April 26, 2002, was appealed and then remanded back to the Forest for further work following appeal; this EIS has been renamed and is intended to address many of the same needs. Some items in the original EA have been removed from the proposed actions in this EIS, including pre-commercial thinning that is outside of the harvest units to decrease small diameter trees, planting hardwoods, conifer removal from hardwood areas and meadows, cutting hardwoods to stimulate reproduction, caging shrubs, fencing to protect hardwoods, and slashing junipers to create barriers to hardwoods. These items will be addressed in other types of environmental documents under the heading of a categorical exclusion. In addition, this document plans to keep 5.4 miles of Forest Road 1940 open to travel (there had been 4.3 miles of Road 1940 planned for closure in previous NEPA documents). The regeneration Salvage Treatment was dropped for wildlife habitat objectives, following interdisciplinary team review.

Purpose and Need for Action.The purposes and needs for action in this project now are:Move vegetation towardsa status more closely resemblinghistorical conditionswhile protecting soil productivity and protecting or enhancing water quality andreduce fuelsto decrease potential fire severity. This project would change the species composition and structure of the vegetation to improve the resiliency of the forested component of the ecosystem.Existing stand densities are higher than historical stand densities, and retard growth to the large tree stage, thus there isa need to increase the number of large treesacross the landscapeand increasethe representation offire tolerate tree species.

Move toward an efficient, properly located road systemthat provides adequate public and administrative access, while reducing the risk of sediment reaching streams. Maintain and/or reconstruct remaining roads to limit delivery of sediment into streams and to facilitate harvest activities while improving water quality. To protect water quality and to decrease movement of sediment into streams, unneeded roads causing resource damage need to be decommissioned or closed.

Threepreviously designatedDedicated Old Growth areas have no Replacement Old Growth (ROG)areas designated; three ROG areas need to be designated. The Malheur National Forest Plan directs the Forest to provide Replacement Old Growth and to complete this process in conjunction with the timber sale planning process.

Capture economic valueof material and help achieve a stable economy in the local area.

The Crawford Roads Analysis reviewed a portion of the roads within the analysis area. Roads needed for the proposal would include the following: new construction (12.8 miles), temporary construction (4.6 miles), reconstructed (0.1 miles), maintained (60.9 miles), closed (15.2 miles) and decommissioned (24.5 miles). The Road Analysis concentrated on roads within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and roads that might be needed for proposed activities, as haul routes. Roads within RHCAs contributing sediment or which potentially could contribute sediment were considered as candidates for decommissioning. No new road construction is proposed within RHCAs. This is permanent, new road construction that remains a part of the transportation system.

Issues.Preliminary issues were identified and include the potential effects of the proposed action on: management indicator species, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and neotropical migratory birds associated with dense forest habitat; soil compaction; increase sediment movement into streams; reduce water quality; and continued vehicle access in the area.

Alternatives.A full range of alternatives will be considered including a “No Action” alternative in which none of the activities proposed above would be implemented. Based on the issues gathered through scoping, the action alternatives could differ in the silvicultural and post-harvest treatments prescribed, the amount and location of harvest, or the amount and location of fuels reduction activity.

Scoping Process.The public will have an opportunity to participate at several points during the analysis including the scoping period after publication of the Notice of Intent, and the draft EIS in theFederal Register.Notification of these opportunities will also appear in subsequent issues of the Malheur National Forest's Schedule of Proposed Activities; letters to agencies, organizations, and individuals who have previously indicated their interest in such activities; and in the Blue Mountain Eagle. Public meetings may be scheduled during the winter of 2003/2004 and the spring of 2004. The scoping process will include identifying potential issues, identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth, eliminating non-significant issues, considering additional alternatives based on themes which will be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities, and identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects).

Comments.Public comments about this proposal are requested in order to assist in properly scoping issues, to determine how to best manage the resources, and to fully analyze environmental effects. Comments received to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 and 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality and, where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

The draft EIS will be filed with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review by May 2004. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date EPA publishes the notice of availability of the draft in theFederal Register.The final EIS will be released in September 2004.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.v.NRDC,435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts.City of Angoonv.Hodel,803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) andWisconsin Heritages, Inc.v.Harris,490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period for the draft ESI. The Forest Service is the lead agency. The Responsible Official is the Forest Supervisor for the Malheur National Forest. The Responsible Official will decide where and whether or not to implement the proposed projects and will document the Crawford Timber Sale and Thinning decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subjectto Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

On August 7, 2001, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement to amend National Forest land and resource management plans in the Southwestern Region to modify standards and guidelines for Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk within wildland-urban interface areas and to emphasize the management of wildland-urban interface areas throughout the southwest was published in theFederal Register(66 FR 41198-41200). This 2001 NOI is hereby rescinded.

The need to amend forest plans to modify standards and guidelines for Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk within wildland-urban interface areas varied throughout the forests and grasslands of the Southwestern Region. As such, a region wide amendment of all forest plans was not deemed necessary. Those forest that have a need to their respective plans may do so on a case-by-case basis. As the forests of the Southwestern Region begin the Forest Plan revision process in Fiscal Year 2004, they can address this need in context with other resource and social issues.

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by October 22, 2003, will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Caribou-Targhee National Forests' Eastern Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, November 12, 2003 in Idaho Falls for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES:

The business meeting will be held on November 12, 2003 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The business meeting on November 12, 2003, begins at 10 a.m., at the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Headquarters Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Agenda topics will include looking at funding for this upcoming year, briefed on project status from last year's approved projects, and welcoming new members.

Harrisburg Hilton and Towers, One North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.

Status:

Most of the meeting will be open to the public. If there is a need for an executive session (closed to the public), it will be held at about 9:30 a.m.

Matters To Be ConsideredPortions Open to the Public:

The primary purpose of this meeting is to (1) Review the independent auditors' report of Commission's financial statements for fiscal year 2002-2003; (2) Review the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) generation information for 2002; (3) Consider a proposal budget for fiscal year 2004-2005; (4) Review recent national developments regarding LLRWmanagement and disposal; (5) Review and discuss issues concerning waste from the Safety Light Site in Pennsylvania and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland; and (6) Elect the Commission's Officers.

Portions Closed to the Public:

Executive Session, if deemed necessary, will be held at about 9:30 a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard R. Janati, Pennsylvania Staff member on the Commission, at 717-787-2163.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by Broward County, Florida, grantee of FTZ 25, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the petroleum product storage facility of Chevron Products Company (Chevron), located in Port Everglades, Florida. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on October 2, 2003.

The Chevron terminal facility (21.53 acres) consists of a single site of two parcels and a pipeline in Port Everglades, Florida, (Broward County):Parcel 1,East Tank Farm (15 tanks, 434,327 barrel capacity, 10.56 acres) located at 1400 S.E. 24th St.; and,Parcel 2,West Tank Farm (3 tanks, 137,953 barrel capacity, 9.39 acres) located at 900 S.E. 24th St. The Chevron connecting pipeline is used for routing of petroleum products to the storage terminals from arriving vessels at the docks.

The storage facility is primarily used for the receipt, storage, and distribution of jet fuel by pipeline to the Miami and Fort Lauderdale International Airports. The company also uses the facility to store and distribute gasoline, diesel fuel, distillate fuels, and blending stocks. Some of the products are or will be sourced from abroad or from U.S. refineries under FTZ procedures.

Zone procedures would exempt Chevron from Customs duties and federal excise taxes on foreign status jet fuel used for international flights. On domestic sales, the company would be able to defer Customs duty payments until the products leave the facility. The application indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the facility's international competitiveness.

No specific manufacturing request is being made at this time. Such a request would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis.

In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:

A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 200 E. las Olas Blvd. (Sun Sentinel Bldg.), Suite 1600, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2284.

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas,the Port of New Orleans, grantee of FTZ 2, has requested authority on behalf of Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (Murphy), to expand the scope of authority under zone procedures within the Murphy refinery in Meraux Louisiana (FTZ Docket 4-2003, filed 1/17/2003);

Whereas,notice inviting public comment has been given in theFederal Register(68 FR 4757, 1/30/03);

Whereas,the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest if approval is subject to the conditions listed below;

Now, therefore,the Board hereby orders:

The application to expand the scope of authority under zone procedures within Subzone 2J, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28, and subject to the following conditions:

2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that non-privileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected on refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings #2709.00.10, #2709.00.20, #2710.11.25, #2710.11.45, #2710.19.05, #2710.19.10, #2710.19.45, #2710.91.00, #2710.99.05, #2710.99.10, #2710.99.16, #2710.99.21 and #2710.99.45 which are used in the production of:

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas,the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 38, has applied on behalf of Fuji Photo Film, Inc. (Fuji), to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 38C, at the Fuji plant in Greenwood, South Carolina, to include additional finished products (medical imaging products, components, and related products), and to increase the overall level of production authorized under FTZ procedures of color negative photographic paper and film (FTZ Doc. 63-2002; filed 12-17-2002);

Whereas,notice inviting public comment was given in theFederal Register(67 FR 79048-79049, 12-27-2002); and,

Whereas,the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest;

Now, therefore,the Board hereby approves the request subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

On February 6, 2003, the Department published the initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order of honey from Argentina covering the period of May 11, 2001 to November 30, 2002.See Honey From Argentina: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,68 FR 6114 (February 6, 2003) (New Shipper Initiation). This review covers one exporter, Nutrin S.A. (Nutrin) of Argentina. For the reasons discussed below, we are rescinding this new shipper review in its entirety.

The merchandise under review is honey from Argentina. For purposes of this review, the products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of theHarmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.

Background

On February 6, 2003, the Department published the initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order of honey from Argentina. This review involves one exporter, Nutrin S.A. of Argentina, and covers the period of May 11, 2001 through November 30, 2002.SeeNew Shipper Initiation. On July 14, 2003, the Department extended the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this new shipper review until November 28, 2003.See Honey From Argentina: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review68 FR 41557 (July 14, 2003).

On February 19, 2003, the Department issued Sections A through C of the Department's antidumping questionnaire to Nutrin. Nutrin responded on March 14, 2003 and April 7, 2003. Petitioners submitted comments on Nutrin's questionnaire responses on April 4, 2003 and May 2, 2003. On May 23, 2003, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire, and Nutrin submitted its supplemental questionnaire response on June 13, 2003. Petitioners again commented on Nutrin's responses on July 1, 2003, and August 4, 2003.

Analysis of New Shipper Review

On August 15, 2003, the Department issued a memorandum detailing our analysis of thebona fidesof Nutrin's U.S. sale and our intent to rescind this review because we preliminarily determined that Nutrin's U.S. sale was not a bona fide transaction based on the totality of the circumstances of the sale. See Memorandum from Angela Strom through Richard Weible to Barbara E. Tillman: New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Intent to Rescind, dated August 21, 2003 (Nutrin Intent to Rescind Memo). In this memorandum, the Department preliminarily determined that the single U.S. sale made by Nutrin was notbona fidedue to (1) the conflicting information contained in different copies of the sales invoice for Nutrin's U.S. sale; (2) Nutrin's failure to disclose other apparent changes in the terms of the U.S. sale; (3) conflicting information and insufficient documentation regarding the date on which the essential terms of sale and final destination of goods were established; (4) inconsistent invoicing practices regarding the U.S. sale and other like sales; (5) atypical payment terms and (6) highly unusual sales and shipping arrangements. The totality of the facts on the record lead the Department toconclude that the sale was neither commercially reasonable norbona fide.

Comments

The Department provided parties an opportunity to comment on the Intent to Rescind Memo dated August 21, 2003. The initial deadline for comments for all parties was August 29, 2003; however, Nutrin requested a seven day extension of time to file its comments. The Department granted the extension and set an extended due date of September 5, 2003. On September 5, 2003, Nutrin requested yet another extension of time; however, the Department denied this additional request given its statutory and regulatory time constraints in completing this review. Nutrin did not submit comments regarding the Department's Intent to Rescind even though it had two weeks to do so. Petitioners submitted comments supporting the Department's position to rescind the new shipper review with respect to Nutrin.

Rescission of New Shipper Reviews

We received no comments rebutting or in disaccord with the Department's findings in its Intent to Rescind Memo regarding Nutrin. Therefore, for the reasons stated above and pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) and 19 CFR 351.214(f), we are rescinding this new shipper review.

Notification

The Department will notify the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of Argentine honey by Nutrin entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this rescission notice in theFederal Register,and that a cash deposit of 30.24 percent ad valorem should be collected for any entries exported by Nutrin.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act.

Notice of rescission of the antidumping duty administrative review of potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China.

SUMMARY:

In response to requests from the petitioner, Carus Chemical Company (Carus), and a U.S. importer, Groupstars Chemicals, LLC, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002. Because Carus withdrew its review request, and Groupstars Chemicals, LLC's review request does not identify the PRC exporter to be reviewed, the Department is rescinding this administrative review.

On January 31, 1984, the Department published in theFederal Register(49 FR 3897) the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC (the order). On January 2, 2003, the Department issued a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the order on a number of products including potassium permanganate from the PRC.See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,68 FR 80. On January 28, 2003, Groupstars Chemicals, LLC requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the order. On January 31, 2003, Carus requested an administrative review of Groupstars Chemicals Co., Ltd.-Shandong, Groupstars Chemical Co., Ltd.-Yunan (a joint venture owned by Groupstars Chemicals, LLC and the Yunan Jianshui County Chemical Industry Factory (JCC)), JCC and the Jianshui Chemical Plant (also translated as Jianshui Chemical Factory and Jianshui General Chemical Plant).

On February 27, 2003, and March 25, 2003, the Department published in theFederal Registernotices initiating administrative reviews of the requested companies.See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,68 FR 9048 andInitiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part,68 FR 14394 (this notice includes companies inadvertently omitted from the February 27, 2003, initiation notice).

On March 17, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the respondents. Groupstars Chemicals Co., Ltd. (which includes both the Shandong and Yunan operations) (Groupstars) responded to the Department's questionnaire on April 21, 2003 and May 8, 2003. On May 29, 2003, Groupstars submitted a letter to the Department on behalf of JCC (also referred to as Jianshui County Chemical Industry Factory) stating that JCC and the Jianshui General Chemical Plant are the same company, and this company did not have any sales to the United States during the POR. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Groupstars on May 15, 2003. In Groupstars' June 10, 2003, response to the supplemental questionnaire, it stated that Groupstars Chemical Co., Ltd.-Yunan did not have any sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.SeeGroupstars' June 10, 2003, supplemental response at 6.

In a letter dated September 11, 2003, Groupstars notified the Department that it will no longer participate in the administrative review. On September 16, 2003, Carus withdrew its request for an administrative review and urged the Department to immediately rescind the administrative review.

The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Rescission of Review

On January 28, 2003, Groupstars Chemicals, LLC submitted a letter to the Department in which it requested “an antidumping administrative review in the above-referenced matter {potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China;} for the review period covering January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002.” On January 31,2003, Carus requested an administrative review of Groupstars Chemicals Co., Ltd.-Shandong, Groupstars Chemical Co., Ltd.-Yunan, JCC and the Jianshui Chemical Plant. Based on these requests, the Department initiated an administrative review of Groupstars Chemicals, LLC, Groupstars Chemicals Co., Ltd.-Shandong, Groupstars Chemical Co., Ltd.-Yunnan, JCC and the Jianshui Chemical Plant.

The Department is rescinding its review of the companies named in Carus' request for review because Carus has withdrawn its request.SeeCarus' September 16, 2003 letter to the Department. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Although Carus withdrew its request after the 90-day period, there were no other requests to review any of the companies for which Carus requested a review, and the review for these companies had not yet progressed beyond a point where it would have been unreasonable to allow Carus to withdraw its request for a review. This action is consistent with the approach taken in past antidumping proceedings.See Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,67 FR 40913, 40914 (June 14, 2002) where, pursuant to a request filed after the 90 day deadline, the Department rescinded the review. Additionally, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provides that the Secretary may extend the time limit for withdrawal requests where it is reasonable. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, the Department pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), has decided that it is reasonable to accept Carus' withdrawal of its request for review.

Furthermore, with respect to the remaining review request, we have determined that it is appropriate to rescind the review of Groupstars Chemicals, LLC because this company is a U.S. importer, rather than an exporter or producer, of subject merchandise and it failed to identify the exporter(s) or producer(s) to be reviewed.SeeGroupstars Chemicals, LLC's January 28, 2003 letter to the Department. Section 351.213(b) of the Department regulations requires that reviews be requested for particular exporters or producers.See19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) stating that domestic interested parties may request an administrative review of “specified individual exporters or producers”; 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) stating that an exporter or producer may request an “administrative review of only that person;” 19 CFR 351(b)(3) stating that an importer of subject merchandise may request an administrative review of only an “exporter or producer * * * of the subject merchandise imported by that importer.” Moreover, the courts have held that the party requesting the review, not the Department, bears the burden of naming and selecting the proper party to be reviewed.See e.g., Floral Trade Councilv.United States,888 F.2d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a request for an administrative review must be for review of “specified individual * * * producers [ ] or exporters”). Additionally, in past PRC cases, the Department has rescinded administrative reviews when requesting parties failed to identify the actual PRC exporter of the subject merchandise in their review requests.See Iron Construction Castings from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,68 FR 33103-01 (June 3, 2003) (in which the Department rescinded the review because the company for which the review was requested and initiated was not an exporter of subject merchandise, but a producer of subject merchandise);see also Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,66 FR 1638-02 (January 9, 2001) (in which a party requested a review of the producer of subject merchandise, rather than the exporter of subject merchandise);see alsoLaizhou City Guangming Pencil-Making Co. Ltd., Et Al., v. United States, No. 02-151, Slip Op. 02-151, 01-00047 (Ct. Int'l Trade December 18, 2002). Because Groupstars Chemicals, LLC is not a PRC exporter of the subject merchandise, and failed to identify any PRC exporter(s) of the subject merchandise in its review request, and with Carus' withdrawal of its review requests, the Department is rescinding this review with respect to Groupstars Chemicals, LLC.

The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and, sections 751(a)(2)(c)) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of First Request for Panel Review.

SUMMARY:

On October 3, 2003, the Canadian Wheat Board filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Panel review was requested of the final determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada. This determination was published in theFederal Register, (68 FR 52741) on September 5, 2003. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number USA-CDA-2003-1904-04 to this request.

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico establishedRules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews(“Rules”). These Rules were published in theFederal Registeron February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on October 3, 2003, requesting panel review of the final determination described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) a Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is November 3, 2003);

(b) a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is November 18, 2003); and

(c) the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of First Request for Panel Review.

SUMMARY:

On October 3, 2003, the Government of Canada filed a First Request for Panel Review with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Second requests were filed on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Government of Saskatchewan, and the Government of Alberta, respectively. Panel review was requested of the final affirmative Countervailing Duty determination made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada. This determination was published in theFederal Register, (68 FR 52747) on September 5, 2003. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number USA-CDA-2003-1904-05 to this request.

Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico establishedRules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews(“Rules”). These Rules were published in theFederal Registeron February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on October 3, 2003, requesting panel review of the final determination described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is November 3, 2003);

(b) a Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is November 18, 2003); and

(c) the panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of receipt of application and proposed incidental take authorization; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS has received an application from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting an oceanographic survey inthe Northwest Atlantic Ocean near Bermuda. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an authorization to LDEO to incidentally take, by harassment, small numbers of several species of cetaceans and pinnipeds for a limited period of time within the next year.

DATES:

Comments and information must be received no later than November 7, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Comments on the application should be addressed to the Acting Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact listed here. Comments cannot be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Under Section 3(18)(A), the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

The term “Level A harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(i). The term “Level B harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(ii).

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

Summary of Request

On July 16, 2003, NMFS received an application from LDEO for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey by theR/V Maurice Ewingwithin the Northwest Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Bermuda near the Bermuda Rise area, between 29° and 35° N and between 61° and 68° W, during November and early December 2003. These operations will take place within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Bermuda and adjacent international waters. Clearance to conduct the seismic survey in the foreign EEZ has been requested from Bermuda (U.K.). The purpose of this project is to determine what physical and chemical changes have been imparted to the tectonic plate as a result of the eruption of the Bermuda volcano. By understanding what portion of the uplift of the seafloor is caused by thermal (temporary) versus chemical (permanent) changes to the plate, it will be possible to predict the rate that volcanoes in the middle of plates will sink beneath the waves.

Description of the Activity

The seismic survey will involve a single vessel, theR/V Maurice Ewing, which will conduct the seismic work. TheMaurice Ewingwill deploy an array of 20 airguns as an energy source, and a receiving system consisting of Ocean Bottom Hydrophones (OBH's), 96 sonobuoys, and/or a 6-km (3.2-nm) towed hydrophone streamer. The energy to the airgun array is compressed air supplied by compressors on board the source vessel. As the airgun array is towed along the survey lines, the towed hydrophone streamer or OBH's will receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-board processing system. The OBH's and sonobuoys will be deployed by theR/V Maurice Ewing.

All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by LDEO scientists, with on-board assistance from the scientists who have proposed the study. The survey will be conducted in the deep ocean depths (1000 m or 3281 ft) of the Bermuda Rise. The survey program will consist of approximately 2400 km (1296 nm) of survey lines. There will be two intersecting seismic reflection and refraction lines, each approximately 600 km (324 nm) long. One line will be oriented north-south along a magnetic isochron, and the other line will be oriented east-west along the presumed track of the hotspot. The point of intersection of these two lines will be in close vicinity of Bermuda Island. Each of the two lines will be surveyed twice. Along each line, the upper crustal structure will be determined by acquiring multibeam sonar, multichannel seismic (MCS), and sonobuoy refraction data. Then, a linear array of OBH's will be deployed for refraction shooting. The specific configuration of the airgun array will differ between the MCS and OBH surveys (described later in this document). There will be additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard.

The procedures to be used for the 2003 seismic survey will be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys by LDEO, e.g., in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Carbotteet al., 1998, 2000). The proposed program will use conventional seismic methodology with a towed airgun array as the energy source and a towed streamer containing hydrophones as the receiver system. In addition, sonobuoys and OBH's will also be used at times as the receiver system. In addition, a multi-beam bathymetric sonar will be operated from the source vessel continuously throughout the entire cruise, and a lower-energy sub-bottom profiler will also be operated during most of the survey. Seismic surveys will likely commence on November 6, 2003, and continue until the first week of December, 2003. Exact dates of the activity may vary by a few days due toweather conditions of the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard.

TheR/V Maurice Ewingwill be used as the source vessel. It will tow the 20-airgun array and a streamer containing hydrophones along predetermined lines. During seismic acquisition, the vessel will travel at 4-5 knots (7.4-9.3 km/hr). During the MCS survey, the airgun array to be used will consist of 20 2000-psi Bolt airguns. The standard 20-gun array will include airguns ranging in chamber volume from 80 to 850 in3, with a total volume of 8,575 in3. These airguns will be spaced in an approximate rectangle of dimensions of 35 m (115 ft)(across track) by 9 m (30 ft)(along track). Seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of approximately 20 seconds. The 20-sec spacing corresponds to a shot interval of about 50 m (164 ft). After the line has been surveyed using MCS, the hydrophone streamer will be retrieved and OBH's will be deployed. During the OBH refraction survey, an augmented 20-gun array will be used and configured for a total volume of approximately 11,000 in3 by changing smaller gun chambers for larger volume chambers (ranging from 145 to 875 in3) after the completion of the MCS reflection lines. Seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of 240 seconds during OBH acquisition. LDEO believes that even though the augmented 20-gun array will have a total air discharge volume of approximately 2400 in3more than the standard 20-gun array, this will not significantly increase the source output since the number of guns has a greater effect on source output than discharge volume.

The dominant frequency components for both airgun arrays is 0 - 188 Hz. The standard 20-airgun array (MCS survey) will have a peak sound source level of 255 dB re 1 μPa or 262 dB peak-to-peak (P-P), and will be towed at a depth of 7.5 m (24.5 ft). The augmented 20-airgun array (OBH survey) will have a peak sound source level of 256 dB re 1 μPa or 263 dB P-P, and will be towed at a depth of 9.0 m (29.5 ft). Because the actual source is a distributed sound source (20 guns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level. Also, because of the directional nature of the sound from the airgun array, the effective source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions will be substantially lower.

Along with the airgun operations, two additional acoustical data acquisition systems will be operated during most or all of the cruise. The ocean floor will be mapped with an Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2 multibeam 15.5-kHz bathymetric sonar, and a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler will also be operated along with the multi-beam sonar. These mid-frequency sound sources are commonly operated from theMaurice Ewingsimultaneous with the airgun array.

The Atlas Hydrosweep is mounted in the hull of theR/V Maurice Ewing, and it operates in three modes, depending on the water depth. The first is a shallow-water mode when water depth is 400 m (1312.3 ft). The source output is 210 dB re 1 μPa-m rms and a single 1-millisec pulse or “ping” per second is transmitted, with a beamwidth of 2.67 degrees fore-aft and 90 degrees in athwartship. The beamwidth is measured to the 3 dB point, as is usually quoted for sonars. The other two modes are deep-water modes. The Omni mode is identical to the shallow-water mode except that the source output is 220 dB rms. The Omni mode is normally used only during start up. The Rotational Directional Transmission (RDT) mode is normally used during deep-water operation and has a 237-dB rms source output. In the RDT mode, each “ping” consists of five successive transmissions, each ensonifying a beam that extends 2.67 degrees fore-aft and approximately 30 degrees in the cross-track direction. The five successive transmissions (segments) sweep from port to starboard with minor overlap, spanning an overall cross-track angular extent of about 140 degrees, with tiny (1 millisec) gaps between the pulses for successive 30-degree segments. The total duration of the “ping”, including all 5 successive segments, varies with water depth but is 1 millisec in water depths 500 m (1640.5 ft) and 10 millisec in the deepest water. For each segment, ping duration, is 1/5th of these values or 2/5th for a receiver in the overlap area ensonified by two beam segments. The “ping” interval during RDT operations depends on water depth and varies from once per second in 500 m (1640.5 ft) water depth to once per 15 seconds in the deepest water.

The sub-bottom profiler is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and bottom topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the Hydrosweep. The energy from the sub-bottom profiler is directed downward by a 3.5-kHz transducer mounted in the hull of theMaurice Ewing. The output varies with water depth from 50 watts in shallow water to 800 watts in deep water. Pulse interval is 1 second but a common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals followed by a 5-s pause. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by this multi-beam sonar is at mid-frequencies, centered at 3.5 kHz. The beamwidth is approximately 30° and is directed downward. Maximum source output is 204 dB re 1 μPa, 800 watts, while nominal source output is 200 dB re 1 μPa, 500 watts. Pulse duration will be 4, 2, or 1 ms, and the bandwith of pulses will be 1.0 kHz, 0.5 kHz, or 0.25 kHz, respectively.

Along the two selected seismic lines, data will first be acquired using multibeam sonar, multichannel seismic, and sonobuoys. A total of 96 sonobuoys will be available, and the Ewing system allows two sonobuoys to be recorded at any time. The sonobuoy profiles will be analyzed during the MCS shooting and streamer recovery on each line. The preliminary results from the sonobuoy refraction will be used to plan the OBH deployment pattern on the subsequent deep refraction survey. Twenty OBH's will be deployed for each line.

Additional information on the airgun arrays, Atlas Hydrosweep, and sub-bottom profiler specifications is contained in the application, which is available upon request (seeADDRESSES).

Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity

A detailed description of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean and its associated marine mammals can be found in a number of documents referenced in the LDEO application as well as in the LDEO application itself, and is not repeated here. Approximately 32 species of cetaceans may be found within the proposed study area near Bermuda. These species are the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima), Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus), Gervais' beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus), Sowerby's beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens), Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), killer whale (Orcinus orca), long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), and the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Another three species are known to occur just outside of the study area and are not likely to be seen within the study area - the northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus(not usually found south of Nova Scotia)), the white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris(does not normally occur south of Cape Cod)), and Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei(usually found further south)). Pinnipeds are unlikely to be seen in the study area although vagrants of grey (Halichoerus grypus) and hooded (Cystophora cristata) seals could occur. Additional information on most of these species is contained in Caretta et al. (2001, 2002) which is available at:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html.

Potential Effects on Marine Mammals

The sound pressure fields for the standard and augmented 20-gun arrays have been modeled by LDEO, in relation to distance and direction from the airguns. As determined by the models, the pressure fields are similar for both the 8575 in3 and the 11,000 in3 arrays. Table 1 in the application (LDEO Bermuda 2003) shows the maximum distances from both 20-airgun array configurations where sound levels of ≥190, 180, 170, and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are predicted to be received:

An earlier notice of an LDEO application and proposed IHA was published in theFederal Registeron April 14, 2003 (68 FR 17909). That notice described, in detail, the characteristics of theEwing'sacoustic sources and, in general, the anticipated effects on marine mammals including masking, disturbance, and potential hearing impairment and other physical effects. That information is not repeated here. In addition, details on acoustic sources from, and possible effects of, the sub-bottom profiler, which was not used in the project described in the April 14, 2003, notice, were described on July 28, 2003 (68 FR 44294). The subject LDEO Bermuda application also provides information on what is known about the effects on marine mammals of the types of seismic operations planned by LDEO.

Estimates of Take by Harassment for the Bermuda Cruise

As described previously (68 FR 17909, April 14 2003), animals subjected to sound levels ≥160 dB may alter their behavior or distribution, and therefore might be considered to be taken by Level B harassment. However, the 160-dB criterion is based on studies of baleen whales. Odontocete hearing at low frequencies is relatively insensitive, and dolphins and pilot whales generally appear to be more tolerant of strong sounds than are most baleen whales. Delphinidae have their best hearing in the higher frequencies and are unlikely to be as sensitive as the mysticete whales to the low frequency of the airgun array. Therefore, they are less likely to experience Level B harassment at 160 dB. A more likely threshold for onset of Level B harassment in response to seismic sounds is at about 170 dB.

The estimates of takes by harassment are based on the number of marine mammals that might be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) by operations with the 20-airgun array planned for the project. Taken from year-round marine mammal density aerial survey data that has been summarized by geographic location and calendar season (CETAP 1982), LDEO used densities for the “Entire Atlantic Stratum” during the autumn period to estimate the numbers of marine mammals that are likely to be present in the proposed survey area near Bermuda. These densities are probably overestimates of the numbers that are likely to be present, because much of the proposed seismic survey area is farther from shore, in greater water depths, and in generally much less productive waters. Because the CETAP (1982) surveys were conducted from an airplane, few beaked whales were seen or identified, and densities of beaked whales were estimated to be zero during the autumn surveys. More than likely there are small numbers of beaked whales in the proposed survey area throughout the year, so LDEO used the mean density for the entire year to estimate the densities of beaked whales that might be present.

Except for beaked whales, LDEO used its best estimate of density to compute a best estimate of the number of marine mammals that may be exposed to seismic sounds≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (NMFS' current criterion for onset of Level B harassment). The best density estimates were multiplied by the linear extent of the proposed survey (1200 km or 648 n.mi. for each of the 8575 and approximately 11,000 in3 arrays) and by twice the 160-dB safety radius around the applicable 20-airgun arrays to estimate the “best estimate” of the numbers of animals of each species that might be exposed to sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the proposed seismic survey program.

Based on this method, Table 3 in the LDEO application gives the best estimates, as well as maximum estimates, of densities for each species or species group of marine mammal that might be exposed to received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and thus potentially taken by Level B harassment during seismic surveys in the proposed study area of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean near Bermuda. It is assumed that the 20-airgun array would be used for all surveys but that air volume would be 8575 in3for half of the survey and approximately 11,000 in3for half of the survey.

Delphinidae would account for 94 percent of the overall estimate for potential taking by harassment (i.e., 10,292 of 10,910), with short-beaked common dolphins (3941) and pilot whales (3345) believed to account for about 71 percent of all delphinids in the area of the proposed seismic survey, and with smaller numbers of bottlenose dolphins (1871), Risso's dolphins (858), and striped dolphins (277) accounting for most of the remaining 29 percent. While there is no agreement regarding any alternative “take” criterion for dolphins exposed to airgun pulses, if only those dolphins exposed to ≥170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) were to be affected sufficiently to be considered taken by Level B harassment, then the best estimate for common dolphins would be 1191 rather than 3941 during the Bermuda Rise cruise, and for pilot whales it would be 1011 instead of3345. These are based on the predicted 170-dB radius around the 20-airgun arrays (2600 m or 8530 ft for the 8575 in3array and 2900 m or 9514 ft for the approximately 11,000 in3array), and are considered to be more realistic estimates of the number of these species that may be disturbed. Therefore, the total number of animals likely to be harassed is considerably lower than the 10,910 animals that LDEO has estimated in Table 3 (LDEO Bermuda 2003).

Conclusions-Effects on Cetaceans

The proposed airgun array configurations are larger than those used in many seismic projects; however, shot intervals are longer than during many surveys and so marine mammals will be exposed to fewer seismic pulses than during many other similar seismic surveys. The pulse interval for the 8575 in3gun array is 20 seconds and is 240 seconds for the 11,000 in3array.

Strong avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 6 to 8 km (3.2 to 4.3 n.mi.) and occasionally as far as 20-30 km (10.8-16.2 n.mi.) from the source vessel. Some bowhead whales avoided waters within 30 km (16.2 n.mi.) of the seismic operation. However, reactions at such long distances appear to be atypical of other species of mysticetes, and even for bowheads may only apply during migration.

Odontocete reactions to seismic pulses, or at least those of dolphins, are expected to extend to lesser distances than are those of mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency hearing is less sensitive than that of mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen from seismic vessels. In fact, there are documented instances of dolphins approaching active seismic vessels. However, dolphins as well as some other types of odontocetes sometimes show avoidance responses and/or other changes in behavior when near operating seismic vessels.

Taking account of the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” In the cases of mysticetes, these reactions are expected to involve small numbers of individual cetaceans. LDEO's best estimate is that 501 fin whales, or 1.1 percent of the estimated North Atlantic fin whale population (IWC 2003) will be exposed to sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and potentially affected during the proposed cruise near Bermuda. In light of all these factors, these potential takings by Level B harassment are expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stock.

Larger numbers of odontocetes may be affected by the proposed activities, but the population sizes of the main species also are larger and the numbers potentially affected are small relative to the population sizes. 38 sperm whales or 0.3 percent of the estimated North Atlantic sperm whale population would receive seismic sounds ≥160 dB. Similarly, only 78 beaked whales from the 5 beaked whale species may be affected by the proposed activities. This is 2.4 percent of the estimated total of all 5 species of beaked whales (3196) that occur along the northeast coast of the U.S. Because the CETAP (1982) surveys were conducted from an airplane, few beaked whales were seen, or at least identified, and densities of beaked whales were estimated to be zero during the autumn surveys. However, LDEO believes there are probably small numbers of beaked whales in the proposed survey area throughout the year, so LDEO used the mean density for the entire year to estimate the densities of beaked whales that might be present during autumn. Most of the proposed seismic survey area is outside of the area for which this 3196 estimate was made, and only a very small part of beaked whale habitat in the North Atlantic was included in the estimate. Thus the actual estimate is more than likely much larger than 3196, and the percentage of animals that might receive seismic sounds ≥160 dB during the proposed cruise is believed to be less than 1 percent of the 3196 estimated North Atlantic population of the 5 species of beaked whales.

The best estimate of the total number of common dolphins, pilot whales, bottlenose dolphins, Risso's dolphins and striped dolphins that might be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in the proposed survey area near Bermuda are 3941, 3345, 1871, 858 and 277, respectively. Of these, about 1191, 1011, 565, 259 and 84, respectively might be exposed to ≥170 dB. These figures are 0.1 to 1.1 percent of the North Atlantic population estimates of these species. However, the actual population sizes are much larger than the estimates so the percentage of the various populations that might be affected are considerably lower than the 0.1 to 1.1 percent mentioned above. The values based on the ≥170 dB criterion are believed to be a more accurate estimate of the number potentially affected.

Mitigation measures such as controlled speed, look-outs, non-pursuit, ramp-ups, and power- and shut-down procedures when within defined ranges (See Mitigation) should further reduce short-term reactions to disturbance, and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity.

Conclusions-effects on Pinnipeds

Very few if any pinnipeds are expected to be encountered during the proposed seismic survey near Bermuda. However, a few stray hooded and grey seals could be encountered. The best estimate of the numbers of each of the more common (but unlikely) species that might be taken by Level B harassment is no more than two and is most likely zero. It is estimated that a maximum of 10 pinnipeds (five for each species) may be affected by the proposed seismic surveys. None of the pinniped species is considered endangered or vulnerable.

No pinnipeds regularly occur in the proposed survey area and thus none are expected to be encountered. If pinnipeds are encountered, the proposed seismic activities would have, at most, a short-term effect on their behavior and no long-term impacts on individual seals or their populations. Responses of pinnipeds to acoustic disturbance are variable, but usually quite limited. Effects are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. Taking these factors into account, impacts are expected to be no more than negligible.

Mitigation

For the proposed seismic operations in the Bermuda Rise area in 2003, LDEO will use a 20-airgun array. The airguns comprising these arrays will be spread out horizontally, so that the energy from the arrays will be directed mostly downward.

The sound pressure fields have been modeled by LDEO in relation to distance and direction from the standard and augmented 20-gun array as shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively (LDEO Bermuda 2003). Since the sound pressure fields around both configurations of the 20-gun array are similar, the marine mammal safety radii for the augmented 20-gun array will be used for the duration of the cruise. The radius around the augmented 20-gun array where the received level would be 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (the level for onset of Level A harassment applicable to cetaceans) is estimated as 925 m (3035 ft). The radius around the augmented 20-gun array where the received level would be 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), (the level for onset of Level A harassment applicable topinnipeds), is estimated as 300 m (984 ft).

Vessel-based observers will monitor marine mammals in the vicinity of the arrays. LDEO proposes to power-down the seismic source if marine mammals are observed within the proposed safety radii. Also, LDEO proposes to use a ramp-up procedure when commencing operations using the 20-gun array. Ramp-up will begin with the smallest gun in the array (80 in3for the standard array and 145 in3for the augmented array), and guns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase at a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5-minute period over a total duration of about 25 minutes. Please refer to LDEO's application for more detailed information about the mitigation measures that are an integral part of the planned activity.

Operational Mitigation

The directional nature of the airgun array to be used in this project is an important mitigating factor, resulting in lower sound levels at any given horizontal distance than would be expected at that distance if the source were omnidirectional with the stated nominal source level. Because the actual seismic source is a distributed sound source rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level.

Proposed Safety Radii

Received sound levels have been modeled for the 20-gun array. Based on the modeling, estimates of the 190-, 180-, 170-, and 160-dB re 1 μPa (rms) distances (safety radii) for these arrays have been provided previously in this document.

Airgun operations will be suspended immediately when cetaceans are seen within or about to enter the appropriate 180-dB (rms) radius, or if pinnipeds are seen within or about to enter the 190-dB (rms) radius. These 180- and 190-dB criteria are consistent with guidelines listed for cetaceans and pinnipeds by NMFS (2000) and other guidance by NMFS. A calibration study was conducted prior to these surveys to determine the actual radii corresponding to each sound level. These actual radii will be implemented for this study. Until then, or if those measurements appear defective, LDEO will use a precautionary 1.5 times the modeled 180-dB (cetaceans) and 190-dB (pinnipeds) radii predicted by the model as the safety radii.

Mitigation During Operations

The following mitigation measures, as well as marine mammal monitoring, will be adopted during the proposed seismic survey program, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements: (1) Speed or course alteration; (2) power-down procedures; (3) shut-down procedures; and (4) ramp-up procedures.

Course Alteration

If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course will be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safey radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or power-down of the airguns.

Power-down and Shut-down Procedures

If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the marine mammal enter the safety radius, the airguns will be powered-down before the mammal is within the safety radius. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the safety zone when first detected, the airguns will be powered-down immediately. A power-down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radius of the 180-dB zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are not in the safety radii. A power-down may also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another.

For the power-down procedure, one airgun (either 80 or 145 in3) will be operated during the interruption of seismic survey. Airgun activity (after both power-down and shut-down procedures) will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety radii. The animal has cleared the safety radii if it is visually observed to have left the safety radii, or if it has not been seen within the radii for 15 min (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales).

If a cetacean is detected close to the airgun array during a power-down, modeled safety radii for a single gun will be maintained. If the standard 20-gun array is used, the single gun that will be firing is 80 in3, and for the augmented array, it is 145 in3. The safety radii for the larger 145 in3gun will be used for mitigation purposes. Since no calibrations have been done to confirm the modeled safety radii for this single gun, conservative (1.5 times the safety radius) radii will be used: 48 m or 158 ft (the conservative radius is 72 m or 236 ft) for cetaceans, and 17 m or 56 ft (the conservative radius is 26 m or 85 ft) for pinnipeds. If a marine mammal is seen within the appropriate safety radius of the array while the guns are powered-down, airgun operations will be shut-down. Airgun operations will not resume until the marine mammal is outside the safety radius.

Ramp-up Procedure

A “ramp-up” procedure will be followed when the airgun array begins operating after a specified-duration period without airgun operations. Under normal operational conditions (vessel speed of about 4 knots or 7.4 km/hr), theMaurice Ewingwould travel 900 m (3117 ft) in about 8 minutes and a ramp-up would be required after a power-down or shut-down period lasting 8 minutes or longer if the Ewing tows a 20-airgun array. Based on the same calculation, a ramp-up procedure would be required after a 6 minute period if the speed of the source vessel was 5 knots. During the ramp-up procedures, the safety zone for the full-gun array will be maintained.

If the airguns are started up at night, two marine mammal observers will monitor for marine mammals near the source vessel for 30 minutes prior to start up of airgun operations and during the subsequent ramp-up procedures. If the safety radius has not been visible for that 30 minute period (e.g., during darkness or fog), ramp-up will not commence unless at least one airgun was operating during the interruption of seismic survey operations.

Monitoring and Reporting

LDEO proposes to conduct marine mammal monitoring of its 2003 seismic program near Bermuda in order to satisfy the anticipated requirements of the IHA.

Vessel-based Visual Monitoring

At least two vessel-based observers dedicated to marine mammal observations will be stationed aboard LDEO's seismic survey vessel for the seismic survey near Bermuda. At least one experienced marine mammal observer will be on duty aboard the seismic vessel, and observers will beappointed by LDEO with NMFS concurrence. Observers will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. Use of two simultaneous observers will increase the proportion of the marine mammals present near the source vessel that are detected.

It is proposed that one or two marine mammal observers aboard the seismic vessel will search for and observe marine mammals whenever seismic operations are in progress during daylight hours, and if feasible, observations will also be made during periods without seismic activity. Two observers will monitor for marine mammals near the seismic source vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to and during all daylight airgun operations including ramp-ups, after an extended shut-down, and during any nighttime startups of the airguns. Airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated safety radii, where there is a possibility of Level A harassment. Observers will not be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night; bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals during this period and will call for the airguns to be powered-down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the safety radii. At least one marine mammal observer will be on “standby” at night, in case bridge personnel see a marine mammal. An image-intensifier night-vision device (NVD) will be available for use at night. Ramp-up will not occur if the safety radius has not been visible for at least 30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime. The 30-minute observation period is only required prior to commencing seismic operations following a shut-down of the 20-gun array for more than 1 hour. After 30 minutes of observation, the ramp-up procedure will be followed.

TheR/V Maurice Ewingis a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. Observers will watch for marine mammals from the highest practical vantagepoint on the vessel, which is either the bridge or the flying bridge. The observer's eye level will be approximately 11 m (36 ft) above sea level when stationed on the bridge, allowing for good visibility within a 210° arc for each observer. If observers are stationed on the flying bridge, the eye level will be 14.4 m (47.2 ft) above sea level. The proposed monitoring plan is summarized later in this document. The observer(s) will systematically scan the area around the vessel with 7 X 50 Fujinon reticle binoculars or with the naked eye during the daytime. At night, night vision equipment will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular image intensifier or equivalent). Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. If a marine mammal is seen well outside the safety radius, the vessel may be maneuvered to avoid having the mammal come within the safety radius (see Mitigation). When mammals are detected within or about to enter the designated safety radii, the airguns will be powered-down immediately. The observer(s) will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the safety radius. Airgun operations will not resume until the animal is outside the safety radius or until the specified intervals (15 or 30 min) have passed without a re-sighting.

Reporting

The vessel-based monitoring will provide data required to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels, to document any apparent disturbance reactions, and thus to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially taken by Level B harassment. It will also provide the information needed in order to shut down the airguns at times when mammals are present in or near the safety zone. When a mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded: (1) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to seismic vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace; and (2) time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (shooting or not), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch, whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.

All mammal observations and airgun shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom database using a laptop computer when observers are off-duty. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized validity data checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical or other programs for further processing and archiving.

Results from the vessel-based observations will provide (1) the basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power-down); (2) information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS; (3) data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted; (4) information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and (5) data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.

A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the seismic program in the Bermuda Rise area. The end of the seismic program is predicted to occur on or about December 9, 2003. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected near the operations, and will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, sound measurement data, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. The draft report will be considered the final report unless comments and suggestions are provided by NMFS within 60 days of its receipt of the draft report.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Under section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has begun consultation on the proposed issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. Consultation will be concluded prior to the issuance of an IHA.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Science Foundation has prepared an EA for the Bermuda Rise survey. NMFS is reviewing this EA and will either adopt it or prepare its own NEPA document before making a determination on the issuance of an IHA. A copy of the NSF EA for this activity is available upon request (seeADDRESSES).

Preliminary Conclusions

NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of conducting a seismic survey program in the Bermuda Riseportion of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. This activity is expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected species.

While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document. In addition, the proposed seismic program will not take place in or near subsistence hunting areas.

Proposed Authorization

NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to LDEO for conducting a seismic survey program in the Bermuda Rise portion of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, provided the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of stocks for subsistence uses.

Although other non-emergency issue not on the agenda may come before the Council for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Council will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been informed of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a joint meeting of its Habitat AP and Coral AP to further the Council's integrated process to update Essential Fish Habitat information and consider ecosystem-based management through the development of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the South Atlantic Region.

DATES:

The joint meeting will take place October 22 and 23, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Town and Country Inn, 2008 Savannah Highway, Charleston, SC, 29407; phone: 800-334-6660 or 843-571-1000.

Meeting participants will meet from 1 until 5 p.m. on October 22, 2003, and again from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on October 23, 2003. Items for discussion at the joint meeting include: (1) a summary of the workshop process to facilitate revision of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and EFH Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (EFH-HAPC) designations and development of a South Atlantic Fishery Ecosystem Plan; (2) deepwater coral habitat research and protection; (3) habitat policy statement review and development; (4) review of regulations protecting EFH and any remaining fishing and non-fishing activities impacting habitat; and (5) research and monitoring needs to refine the designation and protection of EFH and EFH-HAPCs and to support ecosystem-based management.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this notice may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specificallylisted in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final actions to address such emergencies.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (seeADDRESSES) by October 21,2003.

Written or telefaxed comments must be received on or before November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

The application requests and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): seeSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these requests should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular amendment request would be appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or other electronic media.

The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR parts 18 and 216), the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 17 and 222-226).

The National Museum of Natural History (File No. 764-1703/PRT-068532) requests a permit to salvage, collect, import/export, analyze samples, carcasses, hard and soft parts taken from pinnipeds, sirenians, sea and marine otters, and cetaceans to obtain information about the biology and life history of marine mammals and the role they play in the environment. Additionally, samples will be archived and curated at the Natural History Museum. No live animal takes are requested. A permit is requested for a period of five years.

Darla Ewalt (File No. 1038-1693/PRT-064776) requests authorization to receive from Canada tissue samples taken from legally harvested beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), narwhals (Monodon monoceros), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) and ringed seals (Phoca hispida). Tissues to be imported include blood, lymph nodes, lungs and reproductive organs. These samples will be utilized in brucellosis research investigating the presence of Brucella in subsistence harvested marine mammals. The applicant is requesting a five year permit.

Sea World, Inc. (File No. 116-1691/PRT-062475) requests authorization to collect, receive, import, and export an unlimited number of pinniped and cetacean specimens including but not limited to reproductive cells and organs, urine, feces, saliva, ocular secretions, and whole blood taken from dead or captive individuals to study reproductive physiology, including endocrinology, gamete biology, and cryophysiology. Specimens may be collected under the following circumstances for dead animals: directly taken in fisheries for such animals, in countries or situations where such activity is permitted; killed incidental to fishing or other operations; found dead at sea or beached; or that died of natural causes. For captive animals, specimens may be collected from animals that are being housed in countries or situations where such activity is legal and from animals that have been behaviorally conditioned for specimen donation as part of routine husbandry procedures. Specimens may be taken at anytime of the year and in all areas worldwide where pinnipeds and cetaceans are found. The requested duration of the permit is five years.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activities proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in theFederal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Listed below are the schedule of meetings of the Commission of Fine Arts for 2004. The Commission's office is located at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. The meetings are held on the 3rd Thursday of each month, excluding August. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.

Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:www.cfa.gov.Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

Listed below are the schedule of meetings of the Old Georgetown Board for 2004. The Commission's office is located at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. The Old Georgetown Board meetings are held on the 1st Thursday of each month, excluding August. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Georgetown in Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.

Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our web site:www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed in Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for October 16, 2003 at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.

Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:http://www.cfa.gov.Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call (202) 504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

Inquiries and notice of intent to attend the meeting may be addressed to Thomas W. Richardson, Acting Executive Secretary, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Agenda:The theme of the meeting is “Navigation and Regional Sediment Management in the Northwest.” On Tuesday evening, October 28, there will be a joint icebreaker boat trip with PIANC. On Wednesday, October 29, presentations will include: “Functional Performance of Navigation Projects;” “Northwest Harbor Operational Issues;” “IOOS Regional Coastal Program for the Northwest;” “Northwest Regional Sediment Management (RSM) Issues;” “Mouth of the Columbia (MCR) RSM Project;” “Environmental Challenges at the MCR;” “Environmental Data Collection Challenges at the MCR;” “RSM in the Columbia River Basin;” “Wave Data Needs and Analysis in the North Pacific;” “Climatic Variability and Trends in the Columbia River Basin from 1750-2003 and Projections of Climate Change Impacts for the 21st Century;” “Columbia River Littoral Cell (Geological Framework);”“Developing Analytical Tools to Support RSM, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay;” and “Applying Technology for Project RSM Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay.” On Thursday morning, October 30, of the Board will tour the Mouth of the Columbia River Basin via helicopter and will meet in an Executive Session Thursday afternoon.

These meetings are open to the public; participation by the public is scheduled for 4 p.m. on October 29.

The entire meeting is open to the public, but since seating capacity of the meeting room is limited, advance notice of intent to attend, although not required, is requested in order to assure adequate arrangements. Oral participation by public attendees is encouraged during the time scheduled on the agenda; written statements may be submitted prior to the meeting or up to 30 days after the meeting.

The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available for licensing by the Department of the Navy.

Patent application 10/601,893: TWO BAND IMAGING SYSTEM. A two band imaging system with two infrared focal plane array detectors, two filters of known band-pass, a dichroic beam splitter and an image processor. Each filter is placed in front of a corresponding infrared focal plane array detector, and the dichroic beam splitter is disposed within the system at a 45-degree angle to the optical axis such that light entering the system is split and is simultaneously directed to each of the two infrared focal plane array detectors. The image processor simultaneously converts the light entering the two infrared focal plane array detectors into a real time absolute image.

Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold an informal conference followed by a public hearing on Wednesday, October 15. The hearing will be part of the Commission's regular business meeting. Both the conference session and business meeting are open to the public and will be held at the Commission's offices at 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, New Jersey.

The conference among the commissioners and staff will begin at 9:30 a.m. Topics of discussion will include: an update on development of the Water Resources Plan for the Delaware River Basin, including a proposed resolution authorizing the executive director to solicit public comment on the draft plan; an update on establishment of the TMDLs for PCBs in the Delaware Estuary; an update on activities concerning the TMDL Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC), including a summary of a meeting among the regulatory agency participants, IAC membership status, fundraising and plans for an initial two-day meeting on October 21-22; a discussion on the status of the Lake Wallenpaupack drought operating plan approved by Resolution No. 2002-33 on November 25, 2002, including a proposal to extend beyond December 3, 2003 the credit granted PPL to satisfy its consumptive use compensation requirement; and a presentation by a representative from PSEG, updating their Estuary Enhancement Program.

The subjects of the public hearing to be held during the 1:30 p.m. business meeting include the dockets listed below:

1.Borough of Jim Thorpe D-81-71 CP RENEWAL 3.An application for the renewal of a ground water withdrawal project to continue withdrawal of 14.1 million gallons per 30 days (mg/30 days) to supply the applicant's public distribution system from existing Wells Nos. 1 and 4 in the Maunch Chunk Formation in the Silkmill Run Watershed. The project is located in Jim Thorpe Borough, Carbon County, Pennsylvania.

2.Borough of Alpha D-87-62 CP RENEWAL 2.An application to renew a ground water withdrawal of 13.0 mg/30 days to supply the applicant's public distribution system from existing Wells Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the Lopatcong Creek and Pohatcong Creek watersheds. Theproject is located in Alpha Borough, Warren County, New Jersey.

3.City of Bridgeton D-98-50 CP.An application to replace Wells Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the applicant's public water distribution system, which have become unreliable, with replacement Wells Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21; and to add new Wells Nos. 22, 23, and 24. The applicant requests that the combined allocation for the new wells be limited to 60 mg/30 days of water, and that the total withdrawal from all wells be limited to 170 mg/30 days. The project is located in the Cohansey River Watershed in the City of Bridgeton, Cumberland County, New Jersey.

4.Saville Rustin Water Company D-2003-19 CP.An application for approval of a ground water withdrawal project to supply up to 1.296 mg/30 days of water to the applicant's public water distribution system from new Well No. 6, and to retain the existing withdrawal from all wells of 7.5 mg/30 days. The project well is located in the Little Bushkill Watershed in Lehman Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania.

5.East Penn Manufacturing D-2003-23.An application for approval of a ground water withdrawal project to supply up to 15 mg/30 days of water to the applicant's industrial facility from new Wells Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the Leithsville and Hardyston Formations, and to establish the withdrawal from all wells at 15 mg/30 days. The project wells are located in the Moselem Creek Watershed in Richmond Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania.

6.Great Lakes Companies, Inc. D-2003-25.An application to construct a 0.09 mgd STP to provide tertiary treatment of wastewater from the proposed Great Wolf Lodge, a 400-unit hotel with an indoor water park. The project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of State Route 611 and Interstate Route 80 in Pocono Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. Following tertiary treatment, a portion of the effluent will be spray applied to on-site areas. The remaining effluent will be discharged to Scot Run, a tributary of Pocono Creek in the Brodhead Creek Watershed, approximately 18 river miles upstream from DRBC Special Protection Waters.

In addition to the public hearing items, the Commission will address the following at its 1:30 p.m. business meeting: Minutes of the September 3, 2003 business meeting; announcements; a report on Basin hydrologic conditions; a report by the executive director; a report by the Commission's general counsel; a resolution suspending the authority of the applicant to proceed with its project set forth in Docket D-98-11 CP (“the Cornog Quarry Project”), at the applicant's request, pending a further decision of the Commission; a resolution authorizing the executive director to solicit public comment on the draft Water Resources Plan for the Delaware River Basin; a resolution authorizing the executive director to enter into a contract for the development of public outreach materials for the Basin Plan; and a resolution for the minutes amending the Administrative Manual: By-Laws, Management and Personnel by increasing the limit on employee contributions to Unreimbursed Medical Spending Accounts (UMSAs), in accordance with Section 125 of the Federal Internal Revenue Code.

Draft dockets scheduled for public hearing on October 15, 2003 are posted on the Commission's Web site,http://www.drbc.net,where they can be accessed through the Notice of Commission Meeting and Public Hearing. Additional documents relating to the dockets and other items may be examined at the Commission's offices. Please contact Thomas L. Brand at 609-883-9500 ext. 221 with any docket-related questions.

Persons wishing to testify at this hearing are requested to register in advance with the Commission secretary at 609-883-9500 ext. 203. Individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act who wish to attend the hearing should contact the Commission secretary directly at 609-883-9500 ext. 203 or through the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) at 711, to discuss how the Commission may accommodate your needs.

The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the Internet addressLauren_Wittenberg@omb.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,e.g.new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Abstract:The purpose of this information collection is accountability for program implementation and student outcomes for the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness forUndergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). The information collected enables the U.S. Department of Education to demonstrate its progress in meeting the GEAR UP performance objectives as reflected in the indicators.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed fromhttp://edicsweb.ed.gov,by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2294. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments ” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail addressVivan.Reese@ed.gov.Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet addressOCIO_RIMG@ed.govor faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail addressJoe.Schubart@ed.gov.Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the Internet addressLauren_Wittenberg@omb.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,e.g.,new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Abstract:The European Community-United States Programs will support new types of cooperation in curriculum development and student exchange between the U.S. and the European union.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed fromhttp://edicsweb.ed.gov,by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2349. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail addressvivan.reese@ed.gov.Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet addressOCIO_RIMG@ed.govor faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe Schubart at his e-mail addressJoe.Schubart@ed.gov.Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. (VELCO) has applied to amend Presidential Permit PP-66 to change way the subject facilities are authorized to operate. VELCO also has applied to amend Presidential Permit PP-82 to change the names of the owners of the interconnection facilities and to increase the amount of power imports allowed over these facilities.

DATES:

Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before November 10, 2003.

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038. Upon issuance of such a Presidential permit, no material change may be made in the way the facilities are operated unlesssuch change has been approved by the Department of Energy (DOE).

On June 21, 1979, DOE issued Presidential Permit PP-66 to Citizens Utilities Company (now Citizens Communications Company; “Citizens”) for one 120,000-volt (120-kV) electric transmission line that crosses the United States border with Canada near Derby Line, Vermont, and interconnects with similar transmission facilities in Canada owned by Hydro Quebec. On August 21, 2003, Citizens and VELCO (collectively, the “Applicants”) jointly filed an application with DOE to transfer Presidential Permit PP-66 from Citizens to VELCO. VELCO is a Vermont corporation comprised of several electric utilities operating in Vermont (as further described in the application). VELCO currently owns and operates most of the bulk transmission facilities in Vermont, other than those currently owned by Citizens.

VELCO has proposed to purchase from Citizens transmission facilities in northern Vermont, including the international transmission facilities authorized by Presidential Permit PP-66. Notice of the VELCO and Citizens' application to transfer PP-66 appeared in theFederal Registeron September 2, 2003, (68 FR 52187) and that matter is still pending.

On September 3, 2003, VELCO applied to amend Presidential Permit PP-66 to authorize a change in the operation of the facilities (“Derby Interconnection Facilities”) as part of VELCO's Northern Loop Project. VELCO claims that the “Northern Loop Project” would improve the reliability of VELCO's bulk transmission system in northern Vermont and that the requested change will reduce peak imports over the Derby Interconnection Facilities from TransEnergie in the Canadian Province of Quebec. In that same application, VELCO also requested that Presidential Permit PP-82 be amended to change the names of the companies that comprise the Joint Owners of the Highgate Project (the permit holder) and to increase the allowable level of imports over the PP-82 facilities to 250 MW.

In its application, VELCO states that the effect of the Northern Loop Project would be to shift load supplied in Northwestern Vermont from the PP-66 facilities to the PP-82 facilities. This would result in a decrease in electricity imports from Canada over the PP-66 facilities and an increase in imports over the PP-82 facilities.

In its application, VELCO states that implementation of the Northern Loop Project may require the following physical modifications:

• Replacement of the existing 48-kilovolt (kV) transmission line between VELCO's Irasburg Substation and the so-called “Mosher's Tap” with a new, double-circuit 115 kV/48 kV line;

• Connection of this line's 115-kV circuit to one circuit of the existing Mosher's Tap-Highgate Substation line, now operated at 120 kV but to be operated thereafter at 115 kV;

• Connection of this 115-kV circuit at Highgate Substation to VELCO's existing 115-kV line from Georgia to Highgate via a new bus constructed at the Highgate Substation;

• Consolidation of VELCO's and Citizens' now-separate substations in Highgate, a project that may also connect the Highgate Interconnection Facilities (north of the converter terminal) to the 120-kV bus in Highgate Substation (the “Highgate Tap”); and,

• Related improvements to VELCO's St. Johnsbury, Irasburg and St. Albans Substations.

Procedural Matters

Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e., granting the Presidential permit with any conditions and limitations, or denying it) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. DOE also must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

Copies of these applications will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Electricity Regulation home page athttp://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/electricityregulation/.Select “Pending Proceedings” from the options menu.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003 subject to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 154 of the Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 9 E Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046, tendered for filing and approval, ten service agreements (Agreements) between ANR and Kaztex Energy Management Inc., pursuant to ANR's Rate Schedule FTS-1. ANR requests the Commission find that the Agreements contain acceptable material deviations from ANR's Form of Service Agreement and accept the attached tariff sheet which references the Agreements as non-conforming agreements.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but willnot serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the eFiling link.

This notice applies to the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project, FERC No. 2210. The project is licensed to Appalachian Power Company, a part of American Electric Power and is located on the Roanoke River, in Bedford, Pittsylvania, Franklin, and Roanoke Counties, Virginia.

On September 10, 2003, a Notice of Application for Amendment of License andSoliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests was issued for the amendment of license to approve a shoreline management plan filed on September 3, 2003. The comment period ends October 10, 2003. This notice extends the comment period for 90 days until January 10, 2004.

The Commission staff will prepare a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) of the application. Once this DEA is completed, it will be noticed to provide an opportunity for Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the public, to provide comments. All comments will be used in preparing the Final Environmental Assessment to be considered by the Commission when acting on this application.

1. In this order we approve on an interim basis, pending our full review for final approval, the Bonneville Power Administration's (Bonneville) proposed modification to the Safety-Net and Financial-Based Cost Recovery Adjustment Clauses (CRACs), and to the Dividend Distribution Clause, under the 2002 Wholesale Power Rate Schedule General Rate Schedule Provisions (GRSPs). We also provide an additional period of time for the parties to file comments. The proposed rates will allow Bonneville to recover its costs and repay the U.S. Treasury for the Federal investment.

Background

2. On July 29, 2003, Bonneville filed a request for interim and final approval to modify its CRACs and the Dividend Distribution Clause under the 2002 Wholesale Power Rate Schedule General Rate Schedule Provisions (GRSPs), in accordance with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act)1and subpart B of part 300 of the Commission's regulations.2The Commission previously granted final approval of the 2002 GRSPs for a five-year period ending September 30, 2006.3Bonneville contends that the CRACs allowed BPA to keep rates low while still addressing any financial shortfalls, rather than instituting higher base rates for the entire rate period.

1Sections 7(a) and 7(i)(6) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2) and 839e(i)(6) (2000).

7. Under Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2003), the notices of intervention and timely, unopposed motions to intervene make the entities that filed them parties to this proceeding. We will grant NRU's untimely, unopposed motion to intervene because: NRU's interests cannot be adequately represented by other parties; NRU intervened at an early stage of the proceeding; and no prejudice or additional burden upon existing parties will result from permitting the intervention.

Standard of Review

8. Under the Northwest Power Act, the Commission's review of Bonneville's regional power and transmission rates is limited to determining whether Bonneville's proposed rates meet the three specific requirements of section 7(a)(2):

They must be sufficient to assure repayment of the Federal investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System overa reasonable number of years after first meeting the Administrator's other costs;

They must be based upon the Administrator's total system costs; and

Insofar as transmission rates are concerned, they must equitably allocate the costs of the Federal transmission system between Federal and non-Federal power.5

516 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2) (2000). Bonneville also must comply with the financial, accounting, and ratemaking requirements in Department of Energy Order No. RA 6120.2.

9. Commission review of Bonneville's non-regional, non-firm rates also is limited. Review is restricted to determining whether such rates meet the requirements of section 7(k) of the Northwest Act,6which requires that they comply with the Bonneville Project Act, the Flood Control Act of 1944, and the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act (Transmission System Act). Taken together, those statutes require Bonneville to design its non-regional, non-firm rates:

616 U.S.C. 839e(k) (2000).

(1) To recover the cost of generation and transmission of such electric energy, including the amortization of investments in the power projects within a reasonable period;

(2) To encourage the most widespread use of Bonneville power; and

(3) To provide the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles.

10. Unlike the Commission's statutory authority under the Federal Power Act, the Commission's authority under sections 7(a) and 7(k) of the Northwest Power Act does not include the power to modify the rates. The responsibility for developing rates in the first instance is vested with Bonneville's Administrator. The rates are then submitted to the Commission for approval or disapproval. In this regard, the Commission's role can be viewed as an appellate one: To affirm or remand the rates submitted to it for review.7

11. Moreover, review at this interim stage is further limited. In view of the volume and complexity of a Bonneville rate application, such as the one now before the Commission in this filing, and the limited period in advance of the requested effective date in which to review the application,8the Commission generally defers resolution of issues on the merits of Bonneville's application until the order on final confirmation. Thus, the proposed rates, if not patently deficient, generally are approved on an interim basis and the parties are afforded an additional opportunity to raise issues.9

818 CFR 300.10(a)(3)(ii) (2003).

9See, e.g., United States Department of Energy—Bonneville Power Administration, 64 FERC ¶ 61375 at 63606 (1993); United States Department of Energy—Bonneville Power Administration, 40 FERC ¶ 61351 at 62059-60 (1987).

Interim Approval

12. Protesters contend that Bonneville has not shown the need for the rate increase. They argue that the proposed GRSPs will operate to preclude the Commission's statutorily mandated review of future SN CRAC rate adjustments, as required under the Northwest Power Act. They contend that Bonneville has not based the rates on its total system costs, as required by the Northwest Power Act. Protesters also argue, among other things, that (1) Bonneville's application is deficient and fails to comply with the Northwest Power Act, (2) Bonneville failed to file a complete evidentiary record, (3) Bonneville relied on data and information that was not included in the evidentiary record, (4) Bonneville denied the parties in this proceeding due process, and (5) Bonneville submitted materials and a Notice of Filing that do not comply with the Commission's regulations.

13. The Commission's preliminary review indicates that Bonneville's filing appears to meet the minimum threshold filing requirements of part 300 of the Commission's regulations and the statutory standards. Because the Commission's preliminary review of Bonneville's submittal indicates that they do not contain any patent deficiencies, the proposed modifications will be approved on an interim basis pending our full review for final approval. We note, as well, that no one will be harmed by this decision because interim approval allows Bonneville's rates to go into effect subject to refunds with interest if the Commission later determines in its final decision not to approve the rates.10

1018 CFR 300.20(c) (2003).

14. In addition, we will provide an additional period of time for the parties to file comments and reply comments on all issues related to final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. This will ensure that the record in this proceeding is complete.

(B) Interim approval of Bonneville's filing is hereby granted, to become effective on October 1, 2003, subject to refund with interest as set forth in section 300.20(c) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 300.20(c) (2003), pending final action on either its approval or disapproval.

(C) Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, all parties who wish to do so may file additional comments regarding final confirmation and approval of Bonneville's proposed rates. All parties who wish to do so may file reply comments within twenty (20) days thereafter.

(D) The Secretary shall promptly publish this order in theFederal Register.

Take notice that on September 29, 2003, CenterPoint Energy Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet to be effective October 1, 2003:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 11Third Revised Sheet No. 249A

MRT states that the purpose of this filing is to revise the provisions of the General Terms and Conditions of MRT's tariff in order to clarify that it possesses the authority to bill taxes, levies, and other charges imposed on Customers by regulatory agencies or taxing authorities where MRT is required by law to collect such amounts from Customer(s) and remit these amounts to the respective agencies or authorities.

MRT states that copies of the revised tariff sheet are being mailed to all parties on MRT's official service list, to MRT's jurisdictional customers, and to interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordancewith Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet:

Second Substitute Original Sheet No. 556C

This tariff sheet has a July 1, 2003 effective date. CEGT states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's Letter Order issued September 9, 2003 in the above-referenced docket.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the eFiling link.

Take notice that on September 26, 2003 Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) tendered for filing three Firm Transportation Service Agreements (FTSAs), a Letter Agreement and Ninth Revised Sheet No. 1 to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1.

CIG states that the FTSAs and Letter Agreement are being submitted for Commission review under the Commission's material deviation policies and have been listed on the tendered tariff sheet as non-conforming agreements. GIG states that two of the FTSAs are being submitted for review under the Commission's negotiated rate policies. CIG request that the tariff sheet is proposed to become effective October 27, 2003.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 26, 2003, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to, bearing a proposed effective date of October 26, 2003:

Columbia states it is filing to revise its Tariff to insert a footnote, along with associated ADQ and DDQ columns in Appendix A to its Rate Schedule FTS, NTS and OPT pro forma service agreements. Columbia further states the inclusion of the proposed language will help make the pro forma service agreements for all of Columbia's firm transportation services consistent in this regard.

Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all firm customers, interruptible customers and affected state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motionto intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 30, 2003, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised the following revised tariff sheets Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets bearing a proposed effective date of November 1, 2003:

Columbia states that this filing is being submitted pursuant to Stipulation I, Article I, Section E, True-up Mechanism, of the Settlement (Settlement) in Docket No. RP95-408,et al.Pursuant to the true-up mechanism, Columbia is required to true-up its collections from the Settlement Component for twelve-month periods commencing November 1, 1996. In accordance with the Settlement, the true-up component of the Settlement Component is to be removed effective November 1 of each year. Columbia states that the instant filing is being made to remove such true-up component from the currently effective Settlement Component effective November 1, 2003.

Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all firm customers, interruptible customers, and affected state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 29, 2003, Dominion Transmission Inc. (DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of November 1, 2003:

DTI states that the purpose of this filing is to update DTI's effective Transportation Cost Rate Adjustment through the mechanism described in Section 15 of the General Terms and Conditions of DTI's tariff.

DTI states that copies of the filing have been sent to DTI's customers and interested stated commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 29, 2003, Dominion Transmission Inc. (DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with an effective date of November 1, 2003:

DTI states that the purpose of its filing is comply with the Electric Power Cost Adjustment provision of Section 17 of its the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff.

DTI states that copies of the filing have been sent to DTI's customers and interested stated commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contactFERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003, East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 177, included in Appendix A thereto, proposed to be effective on November 1, 2003, or such later date as the facilities constructed for the Patriot Project are placed into service.

East Tennessee states that the purpose of this filing is to implement four negotiated rate agreements and one discounted rate agreement for firm service to be rendered to four customers on East Tennessee's Patriot Project (Docket No. CP01-415), and to update the list of non-conforming agreements contained in Section 45 of the General Terms and Conditions.

East Tennessee requests that the Commission accept this filing by October 15, 2003. In addition, East Tennessee requests that the Commission grant any authorizations and waivers of the Commission's regulations to the extent necessary to permit the tariff sheet and the agreements to be made effective as proposed.

East Tennessee states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected customers of East Tennessee and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC OnlineSupport atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the eFiling link.

Take notice that on September 26, 2003, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore), 417 Bank Lane, Dover, Delaware 19904, filed an application with the Commission in Docket No. CP03-357-000 under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, seeking authority to construct and operate a metering and regulating station in Seaford, Sussex County, Delaware, to serve an existing customer, all as more fully stated in the application.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003, Honeoye Storage Corporation (Honeoye) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1A, one revised tariff sheet to be effective July 1, 2003. The revised tariff sheet is designated as:

Honeoye states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's September 12, 2003 Letter Order which directed Honeoye to remove the reference to certain WGQ Standards incorporated by reference in section 11.12 of its tariff.

Honeoye states that copies of the filing are being mailed to Honeoye's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the eFiling link.

Take notice that on September 30, 2003, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing its report relating to its Deferred Asset Surcharge. Iroquois states that there is no change in the Deferred Asset Surcharge, no tariff sheet is being submitted.

Iroquois states that it is filing the supporting workpapers as part of its annual update of its Deferred Asset Surcharge to reflect the annual revenue requirement associated with the Deferred Asset for the amortization period commencing November 1, 2003. Iroquois further states as shown in those workpapers, there is no change in the rate for the Deferred Asset Surcharge for the period commencing November 1, 2003; accordingly, no revised tariff sheet is necessary.

Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 23, 2003, Katy Storage and Transportation, L.P. (KST) filed a petition for rate approval of market-based rates for storage services pursuant to § 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's Regulations. KST requests approval of its proposed rates as being fair and equitable as it will lack the requisite market power to charge rates in excess of amounts that interstate pipelines and storage providers could charge for similar services.

KST affirms that it is an intrastate pipeline within the meaning of section 2(16) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). Consistent with the Commission's approval of its Section 311 rates in Docket No. PR03-18-000, KST proposes to make its section 311 rates effective as of September 23, 2003.

Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not act within 150 days of the date of this filing, the rates will be deemed to be fair and equitable and not in excess of an amount which interstate pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar transportation service. The Commission may, prior to the expiration of the 150 day period, extend the time for action or institute a proceeding to afford parties an opportunity for written comments and for the oral presentation of views, data, and arguments.

Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or protest with the FederalEnergy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before the date as indicated below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This petition for rate approval is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits I the docket number field to access the document. For Assistance, call (866) 208-3676 or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See, 18 CFR 385.2001(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 26, 2003, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Midwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective November 1, 2003:

Midwestern states that the purpose it its filing is to: (1) Eliminate the OBA PAL Scheduling Penalty in Rate Schedule LMS-MA, (2) provide further clarification regarding the applicability of its Daily Imbalance Charge, and (3) clarify the procedures to be utilized to avoid penalty charges.

Midwestern states that it is not proposing any substantive changes to its remaining penalty provisions under Rate Schedules LMS-MA and LMS-PA, it is only seeking minor clarifications to more clearly articulate the applicability of the penalty provisions thereby minimizing any confusion and reducing the potential imposition of a penalty charge.

Midwestern states that copies of this filing have been sent to all of Midwestern's shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003, MIGC, Inc. (MIGC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No.1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective November 1, 2003:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 90ASecond Revised Sheet No. 90B

MIGC states that the purpose of this filing is to update MIGC's tariff to combine revisions which were previously approved in separate proceedings. MIGC further states that these proposed revisions are necessary to finalize MIGC's compliance with FERC Order's No. 587-O and 587-R.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link.

Take notice that on September 30, 2003, PGE Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing to be part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A., Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 15, First Revised Sheet No. 17, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 18, and Third Revised Sheet No. 21B, with an effective date of October 1, 2003.

GTN states that these sheets are being filed to update GTN's reporting of negotiated rate transactions that it has entered into.

GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on GTN's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link.

Take notice that on September 26, 2003, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, with an effective date of November 1, 2003:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 100

PNGTS states that it is also tendered for filing two alternate tariff sheets:

PNGTS states that its filing proposes to reduce the Firm Transportation (FT) Seasonal Recourse Reservation Rate so that it is equal to 1.9 times the FT Recourse Reservation Rate. PNGTS states that the purpose of this change is to ensure that PNGTS offers seasonal service on a nondiscriminatory basis as directed by the Commission and to ensure that no existing or future seasonal contracts inadvertently raise issues regarding a trigger of the discount clause (referred to as Most Favored Nations or MFN clause) in PNGTS's FT contracts. PNGTS states that the primary tariff sheet reduces the seasonal recourse rate to equal 1.9 times the FT recourse rate effective November 1, 2003. PNGTS further states that, along with the primary tariff sheet, PNGTS is requesting that the Commission reconsider and vacate its June 9, 2003 Order in Docket No. RP02-13-010, which accepted the current seasonal recourse rate. PNGTS's alternate tariff sheets would reduce the seasonal recourse rate to equal 1.9 times the FT recourse rate effective as of November 12, 2002. PNGTS states that finally, in the event that the Commission declines to adopt the primary or alternate proposals, PNGTS requests that the Commission “grandfather” the two existing negotiated seasonal contracts, and continue to recognize those contracts as negotiated relative to the FT recourse rate.

PNGTS states that copies of this filing are being served on all jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions, as well as all parties in Docket No. RP02-13-000.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003, Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company (Southern Trails) pursuant to 18 CFR 154.7 of the Commission's Regulations, submitted for filing the following tariff sheets to Original Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff to be effective October 24, 2003.

Original Volume No. 1First Revised Sheet Nos. 72 through 78

Southern Trails is proposing to update the Measurement section of its tariff to comport with current industry measurement standards and practices.

Southern Trails states that a copy of this filing has been served upon its customers and the Public Service Commissions of Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link.

Take notice that on September 30, 2003, TransColorado Gas Transmission Company (TransColorado) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth First Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet Nos. 21 and Fourth Revised Sheet No. 22A to Tariff to be effective October 1, 2003.

TransColorado states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission's Letter Order issued March 20, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-255-000.

TransColorado states that the tendered tariff sheets propose to revise TransColorado's Tariff to reflect a negotiated-rate contract with Chevron USA, Inc.

TransColorado stated that a copy of this filing has been served upon all parties to this proceeding, TransColorado's customers, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the New Mexico Public Utilities Commission.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the eLibrary (FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the e-Filing link.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1 (Tariff), the following tariff sheet to become effective November 1, 2003:

Second Revised Volume No. 1Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 5B.02

Transwestern's states that its Stipulation and Agreement filed on May 2, 1995, in Docket Nos. RP95-271,et al., as amended by Transwestern's Stipulation and Agreement filed on May 21, 1996, provided for annual adjustments to the Settlement Base Rates (SBRs) beginning November 1, 1998.

Transwestern states that the purpose of the instant filing is to set forth the factors and calculations used in determining the adjustments to the SBRs and to revise the SBRs to be effective November 1, 2003.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary” Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link.

Take notice that on September 24, 2003, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1 (Tariff), the following tariff sheet to become effective November 1, 2003:

Second Revised Volume No. 1Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 5B.03

Pursuant to section 25 of the General Terms and Conditions of Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Transwestern states that it is filing a tariff sheet, which sets forth the new TCR II Reservation Surcharges that Transwestern proposes to put into effect on November 1, 2003.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link.

Take notice that on September 25, 2003, Viking Gas Transmission Company (Viking) tendered for filing to become part of Viking's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 34, to become effective November 1, 2003.

Viking states that the purpose of this filing is to add language to Rate Schedule LMS which would automatically cause a monthly imbalance of less than 1000 Dekatherms to be cashed out at the 0-5 “no penalty” percentage level regardless of the actual monthly imbalance percentage. Viking states that it does not desire to penalize parties whose monthly imbalances are less than 1000 Dekatherms because such imbalance is insignificant in nature and not a source of major harm to its pipeline system.

Viking states that copies of this filing have been sent to all of Viking's contracted shippers and interested state regulatory commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary” (FERRIS). Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on September 25, 2003, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered for filing and approval amendments to two Service Agreements between ANR and Aquila, Inc., which terminate the negotiated rate agreements between the parties.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the eFiling link.

Take notice that on September 30, 2003, East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (East Tennessee) tendered for filing a corrected Exhibit A for Carolina Power Light Company Contract No. 410103.

East Tennessee states the various contracts and negotiated rate agreements were filed with the Commission on September 24, 2003 in Docket No. RP97-13-008. Footnote 16 to the transmittal letter for such filing noted that there was a typographical error on Exhibit A to the service agreement with Carolina Power Light (Contract No. 410103), and that the parties were in the process of correcting the error. The parties have now corrected the error,and East Tennessee hereby files the corrected Exhibit A.

East Tennessee states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected customers of East Tennessee and interested state commissions, and all parties on the service lists.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary”. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

a.Type of Application:New Major License.

b.Project No.:P-2150-026.

c.Date Filed:October 1, 2003.

d.Applicant:Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

e.Name of Project:Baker River Hydroelectric Project.

f.Location:On the Baker River, near the Town of Concrete, in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington. The project occupies about 5,168.5 acres of lands within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

j.Status of Project:With this notice the Commission is soliciting (1) preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations on the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA), and (2) comments on the Draft License Application.

k.Deadline for filing:January 2, 2004.

All comments on the PDEA and Draft License Application should be sent to the addresses noted above in Item (h), with one copy filed with FERC at the following address: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All comments must include the project name and number and bear the heading Preliminary Comments, Preliminary Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, or Preliminary Prescriptions.

Comments and preliminary recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.See18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link.

l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

You may also register online athttp://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htmto be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. has mailed copies of the PDEA and Draft License Application to interested entities and parties. Additional copies may be obtained from the contact person listed in item (h) above.

m. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer as required by Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

h. PGE mailed a copy of the Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project draft Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (dPDEIS) and Draft Application to interested parties on September 30, 2003. A copy of the dPDEIS and Draft application was filed with Commission on September 29, 2003.

i. With this notice we are soliciting preliminary terms, conditions,prescriptions and recommendations on the dPDEIS and draft license application. All comments on the dPDEIS and draft license application should be sent to Portland General Electric at the address above in item (f), with one copy filed with the Commission at the following address: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, 888 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20426. All comments must include the project name and number, and bear the heading “Preliminary Comments,” Preliminary Recommendations,” “Preliminary Terms and Conditions,” or “Preliminary Prescriptions.” Any party interested in commenting must do so by December 31, 2003.

j. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

k.Locations of the application:A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site athttp://www.ferc.govusing the “e-library link—Dockets” Enter the project number P-2195. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support atFERCOnlineSupport@ferc.govor toll-free at (866) 208-3676 or for TTY, (202) 502-8659. The application also can be provided by Portland General Electric from the contact name and telephone number in item (f) above.

Following the completion of its inaugural year, EPA is announcing the continuation of the Watershed Initiative by issuing the second call for nominations of watershed proposals. The Watershed Initiative is a competitive grant program designed to support studies of a series of approaches to watershed protection and restoration to determine if those approaches produce short-term environmental results and have the potential for long term maintenance in a watershed. The President's fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget, which is now before Congress, incorporates a request for $21 million for the Watershed Initiative. Subject to the availability of appropriations for this purpose, EPA plans to select through a competitive process up to 20 watersheds throughout the country for grants to support the study of promising watershed-based approaches to improving water quality. This notice sets forth the process that will be used for selecting the watersheds and serves as the call for nominations from Governors and Tribal Leaders. For the most part, this process is similar to that of the FY 2003 solicitation. This year, however, EPA will place a somewhat larger emphasis on studies of (1) market-based approaches to water quality protection and restoration, and (2) specific approaches to decreasing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.

DATES:

The deadline for EPA receipt of nominations, both in hard copy and in electronic form, is January 15, 2004. Nominations and supporting materials received after this deadline will not be considered.

ADDRESSES:

Two hard copies of the nomination packages must be submitted in their entirety by express mail or courier service. Deliver the original to Carol Peterson, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, USEPA, Room 7136, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004; telephone 202-566-1304. The other copy of the nomination package is to be delivered to the appropriate EPA Regional office (see section IV.C for names and addresses for the regions). Please mark all submissions ATTN: Watershed Initiative.

In addition to the hard copies, a portion of the nomination package must also be submitted electronically to the e-mail address provided. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in section IV of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONsection below.

The Watershed Initiative is predicated on the fundamental concept of the Agency's holistic watershed approach to water resources management. Both the watershed approach and the Watershed Initiative focus on multi-faceted plans for protecting and restoring water resources. Isolated efforts do not provide comprehensive and effective protection and restoration of the resources. Rather, the nominations selected to receive Watershed Initiative funding will be for studies of approaches that go beyond implementing separate, detached activities and will, instead, focus on the effectiveness of an integrated ecosystem-based approach to conservation and restoration throughout a watershed. The selected nominations will include water quality and ecosystem monitoring and evaluation to provide quantitative data to determine the effectiveness of addressing water quality issues at the watershed level.

Last year the Agency conducted a national competition and in May 2003 selected 20 watersheds to award $15 million in grants appropriated for the new Watershed Initiative. The selected nominations were those that were most ready to go and likely to achieve environmental results in a relatively short time period. Those grants will fund watershed partnerships that are undertaking studies of a variety of promising activities to support comprehensive watershed-based approaches to protecting and restoring water resources. For example, over seventy percent of the selected projects address agricultural pollution; fifty percent address urban and industrial runoff; fifty percent address the relationship between water quality and habitat restoration for wildlife and endangered and/or threatened species; and thirty percent have projects aimed at the homeowner. Moreover, several projects will study a more innovative, market-based approach to attaining water quality. These latter watershed partnerships will test possibilities such as pollutant trading and crop insurance. More information on these projects can be found on the Watershed Initiative's Web site listed above.

B. Goals for 2004

The 2004 Watershed Initiative will continue to build upon the Agency's watershed approach to water resourcesmanagement. The Initiative will support studies of coalition-based strategies for activities, such as attaining water quality standards, protecting and restoring the natural and beneficial uses of floodplains, and, in general, improving water resources on a watershed level. Water quality standards establish water quality goals for specific water bodies and play an important role in watershed management. Coalition-based strategies that focus on addressing designated uses in watershed initiatives can help build support for control actions at the watershed level.

The goal of the Watershed Initiative is to study practical and efficient models that can be adapted to local circumstances across the country. The cornerstone of the Initiative is to provide study results that will help advance the successes of partnerships and coalitions that have completed the necessary watershed assessments and have a technically sound watershed plan ready to carry out. EPA believes the Watershed Initiative will help document the kind of pro-active, incentive-based protection and restoration measures that will ultimately yield cleaner water.

In 2004, the Agency plans to continue its focus on studies of approaches aimed to provide quick, measurable results; partnerships; innovation; and integration (formerly called program compatibility). More emphasis, however, will be placed on studies of (1) market-based approaches and other socio-economic strategies, and (2) the serious and growing hypoxia problem facing the Gulf of Mexico. A portion of the appropriation will be devoted to study projects in the Mississippi River basin that address nutrient loadings related to hypoxia. EPA hopes that this targeted approach to the problem of hypoxia will help promote needed changes that are essential to attaining and maintaining clean water and that can be adapted to other areas throughout the country.

1. Studies of Market-Based Approaches

Finding solutions to complex water quality problems requires innovative approaches that can be aligned with core water programs. Market-based approaches create social and economic incentives for the implementation of creative pollution reduction strategies, emerging technologies, and watershed protection measures. Properly designed programs can improve water quality at substantially lower costs and provide incentives for voluntary reductions from all sources, point and nonpoint.

Water quality trading is one important approach that offers flexibility and efficiency in achieving water quality goals on a watershed basis. Trading allows a source with relatively higher pollution control costs to meet a water quality goal or requirement by using pollution reduction credits created by another source with lower costs. This approach enables sources in the same watershed to work together to meet a common goal. EPA considers trading to be an important component of the Watershed Initiative. Properly designed trading programs can improve water quality at substantially lower costs and provide incentives for voluntary reductions from all sources, especially sources that are not regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

One example is a nonpoint source selenium load trading program in the Grassland's Drainage Area in California's San Joaquin Valley. The selenium load trading program is a cap-and-trade environmental program. A regulatory agency sets the cap on the selenium that the Grassland Area Farmers, a group of irrigation and drainage districts, administer through an internal selenium load trading program. Pursuant to the trading program, the total allowable selenium load is allocated among the member irrigation and drainage districts. The districts can either meet their load allocation or buy selenium load allocations from other districts. The tradeable loads program has assisted Grassland Area Farmers in meeting environmental goals in a cost-effective manner.

To promote the concept of trading in relation to fostering environmental progress, EPA has developed a new Water Quality Trading Policy, published in theFederal Registeron January 13, 2003 (68 FR 1608) and posted on the Web sitehttp://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/.The purpose of this policy is to encourage States, interstate agencies, and Tribes to develop and implement water quality trading programs for nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants where opportunities exist to achieve water quality improvements at reduced costs. More specifically, the policy is intended to encourage voluntary trading programs that facilitate the implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), reduce the costs of compliance with CWA regulations, establish incentives for voluntary reductions and promote watershed-based initiatives. Any trading nominations submitted in response to this solicitation must conform to this policy.

Some market-based programs already in progress blend regulatory components and nonregulatory components to achieve environmental improvements. Market-based approaches can include incentive programs to encourage conservation land use or management practices. For example, King County, Washington provides rebates and other tax breaks as an incentive for property owners to reduce impervious surfaces within the County. The money raised through this levy on impervious surfaces is used to provide myriad surface water management services for the County. Other examples of market-based approaches include flood insurance programs that insure against loss through investment in the creation or restoration of wetlands and floodplains, or programs that insure against agricultural crop loss where management practices to reduce pollution have been implemented. Still other examples of market-based approaches involve state-private partnership programs to reduce regulatory compliance costs, implement pollution controls, or institute operational changes that benefit water quality.

Market-based approaches have tremendous potential to instigate change. Trading programs and other market-based approaches can be powerful tools to encourage innovative pollution control technologies and land management practices. EPA wants to fund Watershed Initiative projects that utilize market-based approaches and other socio-economic strategies to determine if they produce real, measurable environmental results.

2. Studies of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico

By far, the largest watershed within the United States is the Mississippi River Basin. Draining all or parts of 31 States, it covers 1.2 million square miles (40% of the US) and travels over 2,300 miles before discharging 612,000 cubic feet of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. On the Gulf's Texas-Louisiana continental shelf, an area of hypoxia forms during the summer months. This “dead zone,” characterized by diminished sunlight and low oxygen levels, is an area virtually devoid of marine life. The hypoxic area has been growing significantly over the years and, at 7,000 square miles, it is double the size it was in 1993. While there are many factors contributing to the Gulf hypoxia, scientific evidence indicates that excess nutrients, particularly nitrogen and to a lesser extent phosphorus, from the Mississippi Riverdrainage basin drive its onset and duration. Studies show that a significant portion (90%) of the nitrates entering the Gulf comes from a variety of human activities, including discharges from sewage treatment plants, and stormwater runoff from city streets and agricultural farms. Much of the nutrient load comes from wastewater discharges and agricultural lands in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio.

Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico has been an Agency priority since the 1998 passage of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act. The Act called for the creation of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, which was then charged with developing an Action Plan to reduce hypoxia in the Gulf. The Action Plan was completed and delivered to Congress in January 2001. The Action Plan can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/msbasin/actionplan.htm.

EPA sees the Watershed Initiative as an opportunity to invoke watershed approaches in the Mississippi drainage basin to ascertain if they result in real, measurable reductions in excessive nutrient levels. As part of this year's Initiative, the Agency is seeking proposals that look at holistic strategies consistent with the Action Plan to reduce the amount of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, entering the Gulf with the goal of testing approaches to stay the further growth of the hypoxic area. Such field studies may include, for example, determining the measurable results of: improving nutrient management programs on farms, restoring or constructing wetlands and vegetated riparian areas, floodplain management and restoration, and enhancing denitrification and nitrogen retention opportunities throughout the river basin and along the coastal plain of Louisiana.

From a national perspective, the nutrient enrichment and resultant hypoxic condition in the Gulf of Mexico is significant in terms of its sheer size, persistence, and location. However, the concern about coastal eutrophication is not limited to the inner shelf off Louisiana. In 1990, it was estimated that nearly half of the nation's estuaries were susceptible to eutrophication. EPA envisions that results from the selected watersheds within the Mississippi River basin will enhance knowledge and understanding of hypoxia and that successful nutrient reduction approaches related to the causes of hypoxia can be adapted to other bays and estuaries along our coasts.

C. Funding Availability

The Administration has requested $21 million for FY 2004 which is subject to the availability of Federal appropriations. EPA will announce when funds become available on its Web site(http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/),and provide, to the extent possible, information regarding the appropriation request as it goes through the Congressional budget process.

EPA expects to use most of the money to support competitive grants for up to 20 selected watersheds—a portion of those watersheds being within the Mississippi River Basin. EPA anticipates that typical grant awards for the selected watersheds will range from $300,000 to $1,300,000, depending on the amount requested and the overall size and need of the project. The total number and amount of the awards will depend on the amount of funds Congress appropriates.

Also, as in 2003, about five percent of the total appropriation will go toward (1) a national conference for the watershed organizations selected to receive grants, and (2) assistance agreements to organizations offering capacity building programs for all watershed organizations. This latter effort will entail enhancing national tools, training, and technical assistance that will help local partnerships be more effective at improving watershed health, so that all watershed organizations, from fledgling groups to sophisticated coalitions, will benefit from the Initiative.

II. Statutory Authority and Eligibility RequirementsA. Authority

EPA expects to award the Watershed Initiative grants under the authority of section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. Regulations pertaining to EPA grants and other assistance agreements are in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts, 30, 31, and 40.

All costs incurred under this program must be allowable under the applicable OMB Cost Circulars: A-87 (States and local governments), A-122 (nonprofit organizations), or A-21 (universities). Copies of these circulars can be found athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/.In accordance with EPA policy and the OMB circulars, as appropriate, any recipient of funding must agree not to use assistance funds for lobbying, fund-raising, or political activities (e.g., lobbying members of Congress or lobbying for other Federal grants, cooperative agreements or contracts).

B. Eligible Activities

Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Agency to award grants to “conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of [water] pollution.” Grant funds awarded as part of this Initiative may only be used for these activities and all grant-funded activities must support the watershed workplan submitted.

These activities seek to advance the state of knowledge, gather information, or transfer information. Demonstrations are projects that exhibit new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches and disseminate the results so that others can benefit from the knowledge gained. Research projects may include the application of established practices when they contribute to learning about an environmental concept or problem.

1.The Watershed Initiative under 104(b)(3).The Watershed Initiative is designed to award grants to support studies of a series of possible approaches to watershed restoration to determine if those approaches produce short-term measurable environmental results in a watershed, or to support demonstration projects to test new and innovative approaches to water quality. For example, if a watershed organization identifies particular environmental threats or impairments to its waters, and proposes to look at a group or series of interrelated projects to address those impairments and includes measurement tools to achieve and judge their success, the proposal could be considered a study under section 104(b)(3). Activities involving the implementation of pollution control measures are eligible for funding only to the extent they are necessary to carry out the study or demonstration project(s). Activities involving wildlife are eligible only to the extent they are conducted as part of a study or demonstration relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction or elimination of water pollution.

2.Exceptions.While certain projects may fall within the scope of section 104(b)(3), the Agency has decided that particular activities do not fit the goals or intentions of the Watershed Initiative. These include any proposals to directly support regulatory activities required under the CWA. Primarily this entails funds for the development of TMDLs, Phase II Stormwater projects, and other Office of Water regulatory programs.Proposals to study the effectiveness of implementing TMDLs, however, are eligible. The construction of buildings or other major structures also will not be funded under this Initiative. Proposals containing subgrant programs (also called pass-through grants) are allowed, but the subgrant portion must account for no more than 20% of the requested funding amount.

C. Eligible Applicants

Under section 104(b)(3) of the CWA, the following entities are eligible to receive grants: State and Tribal water pollution control agencies, interstate or inter-tribal agencies, other public or non-profit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals. The term “State” is defined to include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. All non-profit watershed organizations are eligible, including those in the Agency's National Estuary Program. Watershed organizations that were selected for funding in 2003 can not apply until their previous Watershed Initiative funding is exhausted.

III. Competing for a Watershed Initiative Grant

EPA will select watersheds and the watershed grantees through a national competition. Activities proposed for funding via the Watershed Initiative are not necessarily expected to address the entire watershed, but they are expected to have been developed based on comprehensive assessments and plans for the watershed. Interjurisdictional watershed partnerships, that is, those that involve adjacent authorities, or that transcend international boundaries, are encouraged. Watershed nominations that encompass more than governmental authority will be considered interjurisdictional provided that the appropriate water agency in the adjacent jurisdiction is a partner or otherwise supports the project(s).

For practical purposes, in this context, the term “nomination” is meant to include the proposed workplan along with the required supporting materials. The “nominee” in this case is the watershed organization that is vying for the grant. Watershed nominations may include a single project or multiple projects within the watershed. Nominations will be selected based on the quality of the written materials received, and adherence to the selection criteria and goals of the Initiative. Emphasis will be placed on those proposed projects with clear, measurable environmental indicators and an executable monitoring plan. Funding decisions will be made based on the evaluation criteria outlined in section III.C of this notice. EPA will invite only nominees whose initial proposals are selected under this Initiative to submit detailed final proposals (see section V.A).

A. Nomination and Selection Process

Watersheds must be nominated by Governors or Tribal Leaders. (For the purposes of this notice, a tribal nomination may be submitted by a Tribal Official.) Each Governor or Tribal Leader may prepare or solicit watershed proposals from eligible entities in a manner most appropriate to their State or Tribe, and nominate the most meritorious to EPA.

Governors or Tribal Leaders are invited to nominate a maximum of two State or Tribal watersheds each. There is, however, no limit on the number of inter-state or joint State and Tribal watersheds that can be nominated. For inter-state or joint State and Tribal watersheds, any of the involved Governors/Tribal Leaders may submit the nomination. Such watershed nominations must include the endorsement of all partnering State Governors or Tribal Leaders or Officials in their nomination package.

Governors and Tribal Leaders are to submit their watershed nominations to EPA (see section IV for details). All nominations will be screened by EPA staff prior to review to determine if they are eligible, complete, and in accordance with the instructions provided in this notice. If any of the required elements of the nomination package are not submitted, EPA may choose to contact the nominee.

Once received by EPA, the nominations will undergo two levels of review—one at the regional level and one at the national level. Each of the Agency's Regional Offices will convene a Review and Evaluation Panel that will assess how well the nominations meet the evaluation criteria described below. Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will convene a separate panel session to review and evaluate hypoxia plans. Hypoxia proposals not ranked sufficiently high to merit recommendation for the hypoxia funds will be placed in competition with the other nominations received for general Watershed Initiative funds. Based on the panel review and recommendation, each Regional Administrator will then forward the Region's top four candidates to EPA's Office of Water at Headquarters. Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will seek to include a minimum of one hypoxia nomination in their transmittal.

Upon receipt of the Regional recommendations, the Office of Water will convene a Technical Advisory Panel at the national level consisting of representatives from the Agency's Program and Regional Offices to review and rank the watershed nominations. Other Federal agencies may be invited to participate in this review. Again, hypoxia proposals will be evaluated and scored separately. In addition to the evaluation criteria listed below, factors such as geographic diversity, project diversity, watershed size, urban/rural mix, and cost will be considered in ranking nominations for consideration by the Administrator. The Administrator will select the watersheds to be funded.

EPA expects to announce the watershed nominations selected under this Initiative early in calendar year 2004 and to complete the grant award process, including final grant workplan negotiations through the appropriate EPA Regional Office, by spring 2004. In general, grants awarded will be one-time awards and grant recipients should use the funds within 2-3 years. Subsequent funding would involve a new call for watershed nominations and is predicated on continued appropriations. Therefore, any proposal for work beyond the initial funding period would need to be submitted through the competitive process and will not receive preferential consideration based on the applicant's previous award.

B. Required Components of the Nomination Package

In preparing nomination materials, nominees are to keep in mind the evaluation criteria by which their overall nomination,i.e, interrelated individual projects, will be judged. Within these required components, nominees should address completely and to the best of their ability the criteria the Agency will be using in its evaluation as outlined in section III.C below.

Each nomination package must contain the components listed in this section. Failure to include any of this information could result in disqualification and removal from the selection process. Conversely, additional, unsolicited material is strongly discouraged and any such material submitted will not be considered.

1. Nomination Letter.A letter signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader formally nominating the watershed for consideration for funding under the Watershed Initiative must accompany each nomination package.

2. Title Page.The title page must indicate: (1) The name of the watershed along with the designated 8-digit HUC code(s), (2) nominee contact information,i.e., name, affiliation, address, telephone, and e-mail of the person with whom the Agency should correspond, and (3) whether the nomination is devoted to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.

3. Abstract.A 150-word or less summary of the nomination.

4. Workplan Description.The narrative description of the workplan components is limited to a total of ten, double-spaced pages in which the following components described below are addressed. Note that the page limits for each component below add up to greater than 10 pages and that nominees should adjust their nomination packages in a manner that best fits their needs.

Characterize the watershed and overall watershed planning efforts. Describe what efforts have been undertaken to improve watershed health, next steps, and future plans. An assessment of the natural resource and environmental conditions, and an identification of problem sources and areas for treatment are required. These include:

(1) A description of the watershed's biological, physical, and, if relevant, social and/or cultural characteristics.

(2) An identification of the threats and impairments facing the watershed, focusing on those that will be addressed by the proposal.

(3) An overall description of the watershed plan including short- and long-term watershed goals.

(4) An identification of the assessments and plans that have been completed to date.

(b) Description of the Proposed Study Projects (7 pages maximum)

Describe the projects to be funded under the Watershed Initiative grant. These should be described in terms of applied field studies or demonstrations to yield potentially positive environmental results. The following information must be included:

(1) An explanation of how the project or aggregation of the individual projects is expected to affect watershed health.

(2) A detailed description of each project (if more than one) including: (i) a description of the components and goals of the project(s), (ii) a schedule for implementing the project(s); (iii) a summary of the costs of the project(s) with reference to the appended itemized budget for details; and (iv) milestones for determining whether or not the intended goals of the watershed study project(s) are being realized.

(3) A monitoring and evaluation component along with identified environmental indicators. Attention should be given to baseline data requirements. This component should include performance measures and progress goals, as well as a description of how the ultimate success of the projects will be measured. Performance measures must be environmental (e.g., chemical or microbial levels attained). Other measures to be monitored should be infrastructural (e.g., additional partnerships formed) and implementational (e.g., best management practices instituted). The progress and performance of the projects must be measurable by technically sound practices.

(4) A description of how the projects complement or are consistent with other EPA, Federal, and/or State programs or mandates. Other Federal contributors or supporting partners should also be identified.

(c) Description of Project Management (2 pages maximum)

Provide a biography on the project leader(s) (not to exceed one-half page each) describing qualifications for managing the project(s) and focusing on grant management and watershed management capabilities and experience. Identify the entity that will be the grantee and thus responsible for the administration of the grant workplan and for being the fiscal agent receiving the funds. Include academic experience only if relevant to the proposal. Do not send resumes.

(d) Description of Outreach Activities (1 page maximum)

Describe the information and outreach plan that will be used to enhance public understanding of the watershed and encourage participation in the local project or projects, and future activities regarding implementing the goals of the watershed plan. Because the selected watersheds are intended to serve as models for other communities, this outreach plan must include activities for transferring the knowledge gained from this effort to other areas.

5. Budget.Provide a detailed breakdown of cost by category for each project.

(a) Standard Budget Form. To facilitate the compilation and review of financial information, the Agency is providing a standard form for potential applicants to use when submitting project budgets. This form (Table 1) may be reconstructed or downloaded from the Watershed Initiative Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/budget.form.All budget information, including matching funds and other leveraged services, and travel cost to the annual conference, must be provided on this form. (Information on matching funds and the annual conference is described in sections III.B(b) and (c) below). Nominees should include cost estimates for each of the proposed project activities to be conducted under the grant. Explanations of the costs associated with each entry should be included in the narrative description portion of the nomination package.

(b) Matching Requirement. EPA is requiring applicants to demonstrate a minimum non-Federal match of 25% of the total cost of the project or projects (i.e., EPA will fund a maximum of 75% of the total cost, including matching funds). The Agency considers this matching contribution as evidence of community support and commitment, and an opportunity to increase the overall scope of the proposed project. EPA encourages applicants to leverage as much investment as possible. In addition to cash, matching funds can come from in-kind goods and services such as the use of volunteers and their donated time, equipment, expertise, etc., consistent with the regulation governing matching fund requirements (40 CFR 31.24 or 40 CFR 30.23). Other Federal funds may not be used to meet the match requirement for this grant program unless authorized by the statute governing the use of the other Federal funds.

Tribes and Tribal watershed groups may be exempt from this match requirement if they are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match requirement would impose undue hardship. EPA acknowledges the limited means of many Tribes and the difficulty they may have in obtaining non-Federal matching contributions. Tribes wishing to be exempt from the minimum 25% match requirement must submit a one-page written request with justification. Exemption requests should be sent directly to the EPA Headquarters contact listed in section IV.C 45 days prior to the nomination deadline. If approved, the nomination will be scored as if it met the minimum 25% match.

(c) Annual Conference. Watershed organizations selected for grant funding will be required to attend an annual two-day National Watershed Initiative Conference. The purpose of this conference is to provide these watershed organizations with training and support to better restore, protect, and manage their watersheds, and to help position them to teach other watershed groups by their example. The goals of this conference are to:

(1) Transfer information about innovative technical tools available for watershed restoration, protection and management. Provide assistance on how and where to get more information at the Federal, State, Tribal and local levels.

(2) Provide training to conference attendees on how to maximize the use of Federal programs in implementing their Watershed Initiative projects, for example, integration and use of other resources available under the CWA and Safe Drinking Water Act.

(3) Plan for translating individual project successes into models to be replicated by other local watershed organizations across the country.

(4) Provide grant recipients with opportunities to share successful approaches with each other and other peer-to-peer learning opportunities.

Attendance at the conference will be mandatory and will be one of the Terms and Conditions of the grant. The grantee will be allowed to use the grant funds to pay for travel and lodging. The cost of holding the conference will be paid for by EPA. If the recipient wishes to use the award money for travel expenses, these costs must be included in the submitted proposed budget. The Agency will make every effort to hold the two-day conference in a central location to minimize travel costs.

(d) Information Technology. Also as a Term and Condition of the grant, recipients will be required to institute standardized reporting requirements into their workplans and include such costs in their budgets. All environmental data will be required to be entered into the Agency's Storage and Retrieval (STORET) data system. STORET is a repository for water quality, biological, and other physical data used by State environmental agencies, EPA and other Federal agencies, universities, private citizens, and many other organizations. Training on how to use STORET will be provided at the annual conference. Watershed organizations may also want to contact their State agency responsible for entering data into the system. More information about STORET can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/STORET.

6.Appendices.To substantiate the information contained in the narrative portion of the submission, documentation to verify partnerships and matching funds is required. Items that must accompany the narrativedescription and may be submitted as appendices include the following.

(a) Signed letter(s) from active partners indicating their commitment to implementing the workplan or for specific proposed projects.

(b) A minimum of one signed letter from an entity committing to provide matching funds, either in cash or in-kind goods and services, including the total value of the commitment toward the projects.

(c) For interjurisdictional nominations, a signed letter(s) from the appropriate organization in the adjacent State, Tribe, or country expressing their support and participation in the proposed project(s). For example, a letter from another governor, Tribal leader, State water commissioner, State water quality director, environmental director, or similar positions in Canada or Mexico is acceptable.

(d) Maps (optional).

(e) Supplementary Technical Information (optional). If the proposal includes a new or otherwise not widely known technology or methodology, a one-page description may be appended.

C. Evaluation Criteria

Watershed nominations will be reviewed, evaluated, and scored based on the following criteria with a possible total score of 60 points. In addition to the points awarded for the criteria, up to 5 additional points will be awarded to nominations that are interjurisdictional and have been submitted with the proper supporting letter(s). Rather than having a bonus category, these points will be a subsection of the Broad Support category described below.

1. Innovation(10 points). Reviewers will be looking for progressive and forward-thinking projects when evaluating the nominations, and as such, watershed nominations that undertake unique, innovative, or novel approaches to environmental problem-solving will be scored higher. While the Agency recognizes that there can be innovative approaches that are not market-based, maximum points will be awarded to nominations that incorporate market-based approaches to water quality.

2. Measurement of Environmental Results(total of 30 points). Successful nominees must demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the watershed ecology and present a sound approach for potentially combating threats or impairments to the water system. For this criteria, reviewers will focus on the following components:

(a) Feasibility (10 points). Reviewers will look at the readiness of the nomination. Those projects that can be implemented quickly will receive more points. Nominations will be evaluated on the technical merit and adequacy of each project. Reviewers will favor nominations that describe projects that are part of larger comprehensive watershed assessments and plans, and reflect an ecosystem-based approach to conservation and restoration. Points will be awarded based on the overall soundness of the nomination from both an ecological and design perspective. In summary, higher scores will be given to those nominees that have demonstrated an understanding of priority water resource problems within the watershed, have substantially completed the assessment and planning phase, and are prepared to begin work.

(b) Experience (5 points). Nominations will be scored based on the qualifications of the nominee focusing on management and technical capabilities. Reviewers will assess the past experience of project leader(s) and/or partners in designing, implementing, and effectively managing and coordinating activities. Communities or organizations that have no prior experience and have developed their preliminary workplan will be evaluated on the basis of their proposal and their potential to effectively manage and oversee all phases of the proposed workplan and demonstrated working relationship with their partners.

(c) Tangible Measures (10 points). A nomination will be scored based on how well it is supported by a clearly articulated set of performance and progress measures, and identified environmental indicators. A more detailed monitoring and data collection strategy will be preferred. Reviewers will evaluate the workplan in relation to its likelihood to achieve predicted measurable, defensible environmental results in a relatively short time period, including potentially attaining performance expectations, reaching project goals, and producing on-the-ground, quantifiable environmental change using sound science.

(d) Integration (5 points). Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the workplan and proposed project(s) are linked to other existing State or Federal programs. Points will be awarded to those watershed nominations that integrate the common goals and complement the ongoing efforts occurring at the Federal, State, or local level.

3. Broad Support(total of 10 points). Acknowledging and responding to representative interests from a broad and varied perspective is quintessential to any successful watershed enterprise. This criteria can be met by illustrating and substantiating a strong collaborative effort.

(a) Partnerships (5 points). Watershed nominations that incorporate a wide variety of public, private, and non-profit participation will be favored. The score for this criterion will be based on the level to which a nominee can demonstrate strong and diverse stakeholder stewardship and support. Reviewers will look for documented, effective working relationships among State and local entities, along with evidence of broad-based community involvement.

(b) Interjurisdictionality (5 points). Points will be awarded to nominations that actively involve more than one governmental entity, be it municipal, county, State, Tribe, Federal or country. Reviewers will look at the depth and breadth of jurisdictional participation and will also take into consideration any significant parties that are noticeably absent in lending their support of the nomination.

4. Outreach(5 points). Proposals will be judged on the design and breadth of their outreach program. Those proposals that demonstrate a clear strategy for transferring the knowledge and experience garnered over the next few years to other watersheds with similar environmental conditions will score higher. Points will also be awarded for training and educational approaches to disseminating watershed information.

5. Financial Integrity(5 points). Points will be awarded based on the adequacy of the budget information provided, and whether the budget is reasonable and clearly presented. Proposals that exceed the minimum match requirement or can certify a broad range of leveraging capacity will be scored higher.

IV. Call for Nominations

EPA invites each Governor and Tribal Leader to submit nominations for grants under the 2004 Watershed Initiative.

A. Format of Nomination Package

Each nomination package must contain: (1) A one-page cover letter signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader, (2) a title page with appropriate information, (3) an abstract, (4) a workplan description, (5) the budget form, and (6) letter(s) and certification(s) of support. Maps and supplementary technical information are optional. The workplan description of the nomination must be no more than ten double-spaced pages long, using a 12-point conventional font and one inch margins. This section must include all of the required components listed in section III.B. To ensure a fair and equitableevaluation of the nominations, please do not exceed the above limits. A nomination that contains a workplan narrative that exceeds ten double-spaced pages will not be considered. The title page and 150-word or less abstract will not count toward the 10-page limit. The entire nomination package should be printed on one side only of 81/2″x11″ paper and unbound. Appended project budget form, maps, letters of support, and match certifications will not count toward the 10-page limit.

B. Submission of Nominations

1. Electronic.EPA is requiring that a portion of the nomination be submitted electronically. Please send an electronic copy ofonlythe title page, abstract, workplan description, and budget form to the electronic mailbox atinitiative.watershed@epa.gov. Electronic submissions are limited to 120 KB in size and one submission per nomination. Pleasedo notsend maps, letters of support, match certifications, or pictures of any kind via the electronic mailbox. The subject line must be in the format “STATE—Watershed Name” (e.g., MD—Rock Creek). No confidential business information should be sent via e-mail. The deadline for all electronic submissions is 12:00 pm Eastern time on January 15, 2004. If unusual or extraordinary circumstances prevent electronic submission of the nomination, please contact the appropriate Regional contact person listed below to discuss alternate arrangements.

2. Paper.Two hard copies of the complete nomination package (including all nominating and support letters) are required to be delivered—the original package to EPA Headquarters and a copy to the appropriate Regional Office. All names and addresses are listed below. Mark all submissions: ATTN: EPA Watershed Initiative.

EPA will invite only nominees whose initial nominations are selected under this Initiative to submit detailed final proposals. Once selected to submit a grant application, the nominees will have 60 days to complete the formal grant application process (i.e., Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424et al). The standard EPA grants application package must be filed according to Agency guidelines. Detailed information and assistance, including an application kit, required forms, and a check list, can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/. In anticipation of this process, all potential nominees may want to explore the above Web site for useful and pertinent information prior to preparing and submitting their nomination materials.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 66.439 Targeted Watershed Initiative. Any disputes regarding proposals or applications submitted in response to these guidelines will be resolved in accordance with 40 CFR 30.63 and part 31, subpart F. Applicants should clearlymark information they consider confidential. EPA will make final confidentiality determinations in accordance with regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

Although the selections will be announced at the national level, Watershed Initiative grants will be awarded and managed by the respective EPA Regional Offices. Selected nominees may be asked to modify objectives, workplans, or budgets prior to final approval of the grant award. The exact amount of funds to be awarded, the final scope of activities, the duration of the projects, and specific role of the EPA Regional project coordinator will be determined in the pre-award negotiations between the selected nominee and EPA. The designated EPA Regional Contact listed in section IV.C will be available to provide additional guidance in completing the grant application, and other necessary forms, and answering any questions. EPA will also work with the applicant to comply with the Intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 and 40 CFR part 29. EPA reserves the right reject all proposals and make no awards.

B. Project Implementation and Management

Project monitoring and reporting requirements can be found in 40 CFR 30.50-30.54, 40 CFR 31.40-31.45 and 40 CFR 40.160. In general, grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations and activities supported by the grant to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements, and for ensuring that established milestones and performance goals are being achieved. Performance reports and financial reports must be submitted quarterly and are due 30 days after the reporting period. The final report is due 90 days after the grant has expired. Grant managers should consult, and work closely with, their Regional contact person throughout the award period.

Certain quality assurance and/or quality control (QA/QC) and peer review requirements are applicable to the collection of environmental data. Applicants should allow sufficient time and resources for this process in their proposed projects. Environmental data are any measurements or information that describe environmental processes, location, or condition; ecological or health effects and consequences; or the performance of environmental technology. Environmental data also include information collected directly from measurements, produced from models, and obtained from other sources such as data bases or published literature.

Regulations pertaining to QA/QC requirements can be found in 40 CFR 30.54 and 31.45. Additional guidance can be found athttp://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html#noeparqt.

Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from August 18, 2003 to September 5, 2003, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

DATES:

Comments identified by the docket ID number OPPT-2003-0057 and the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. General InformationA. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1.Docket.EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2003-0057. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

2.Electronic access. You may access thisFederal Registerdocument electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings athttp://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets athttp://www.epa.gov/edocket/to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly availabledocket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1.Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i.EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets athttp://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2003-0057. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii.E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail tooppt.ncic@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2003-0057 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii.Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

3.By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Building Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2003-0057 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without priornotice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action and the specific PMN number you are commenting on in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, andFederal Registercitation.

II. Why is EPA Taking this Action?

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from August 18, 2003 to September 5, 2003, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

III. Receipt and Status Report for PMNs

This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

Notice is hereby given that EPA has made a final affirmative determination regarding the petition received from the State of New York on April 29, 1999 requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to Section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4 (the Clean Water Act), that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of the Hudson River and its tributaries including, but not limited to, Rondout Creek, Esopus Creek and Catskill Creek. This petition was made by the New York State Department of State, in conjunction with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State certified in the petition a need for greater protection and enhancement. The certification states that the discharge of vessel waste often contain chemical additives such as formaldehyde, phenols and chlorine. These wastes increase loadings of nutrients, pathogens and chemical loading particularly in shallow, poorly flushed waterbodies, and may adversely affect water quality, sensitive and important resources, and uses of these waters. The Hudson River provides habitat for fish and wildlife species. Congress has designated the Hudson River as a National Heritage Area under the purview of the National Park Service, and in 1998, the Hudson River was designated an American Heritage River. Upon receipt of this final affirmative determination, the State of New York will completely prohibit the discharge of sewage, whether treated or not, from any vessel, with the exception of commercial vessels that are greater than 225 feet in overall length or are greater than 20 feet in draft, on the Hudson River in the area north of the Battery in Manhattan, New York and south of Federal Dam in Troy, New York in accordance with Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.4(a). For vessels that are greater than 225 feet in overall length or are greater than 20 feet in draft, the prohibition will be applicable one year from the date of publication in theFederal Register.

Previously, EPA established on December 13, 1995 two No Discharge Areas (NDAs) to protect drinking water intake zones. Zone 1 is bounded by the northern confluence of the Mohawk River on the south and Lock 2 on the north. It is approximately 8 miles long. Zone 2 is bounded on the south by the Village of Roseton on the western shore and bounded on the north by the southern end of Houghtaling Island. Zone 2 is approximately 60 miles long.

The southern boundary of the proposed NDA in this application would begin at the Battery in Manhattan, New York and the northern boundary would be the Federal Dam in Troy, New York. This area includes waters up to the New Jersey-New York boundary and does not include waters in New Jersey. The area proposed by the State of New York is 153 miles long and encompasses approximately 81,000 acres of tidal waters and wetlands.

On October 24, 2000, EPA published a Receipt of Petition and Tentative Determination and accepted comments from the public for a thirty (30) day period. The comment period was extended until December 22, 2000 at the request of one of the commenters. EPA received letters from the following individuals:

One commenter expressed confusion over the boundaries of the Hudson River NDA. His confusion was caused by the statement that some vessel operators while docked at the Brooklyn Naval Yard have their holding tanks pumped out by waste haulers. Since the Brooklyn Naval Yard is on the East River, he asked whether the prohibition included the East River. It does not include the East River, but boaters may choose to use pumpout facilities located outside of the NDA because the facilities are more convenient for them. For example, a boater who keeps his boat in a Staten Island marina may choose to use the pumpout at his home marina because it is convenient. The southern boundary of the proposed No Discharge Area (NDA) in this application would begin at the Battery in Manhattan, New York and the northern boundary would be the Federal Dam in Troy, New York. This area includes waters up to the New Jersey-New York boundary and does not include waters in New Jersey. It does not include the East River, the Harlem River, the Long Island Sound nor the Raritan Bay. No change to the determination is necessary based on this comment.

Three commenters expressed their support for the complete prohibition of the discharge of sewage from vessels. They believe that this determination is an important step in maintaining the vitality of the Hudson River. No change to the determination is necessary based on these comments.

One commenter compared the prohibition to a “chamber pot” approach and questioned whether making waste disposal more difficult for boaters effectively eliminates sewage. The commenter stated that marine sanitation devices (MSDs) must beallowed to operate and discharge. In response, EPA notes that the pumpout and subsequent treatment of wastes at a sewage treatment plant generally results in a higher level of treatment than an MSD can provide. A holding tank is a total retention/no discharge alternative. A flow through device (Type I or Type II) treats the waste to some degree and then discharges into the water. This discharge contains pathogens, nutrients and various chemicals. This commenter also expressed concern about the capacity of a holding tank capacity (2 days of waste), the distance between pumpouts (15.5 miles) and the speed at which most vessels travel (5 knots per hour). The capacity of a holding tank is determined by several factors, volume, size of the crew, and the use of shore bathroom facilities when available. The greatest distance between pumpout facilities, based on the charts submitted in the application, is 12 miles. The speed at which vessels travel is determined by whether the vessel is a sailing or power vessel. These are all factors, including fuel, weather, supplies and charts, which the operator of the vessel needs to consider when planning his trip. No changes to the determination are necessary based on these comments.

Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the ability of large commercial vessels to dispose of sewage due to the lack of facilities and the draft restriction at pumpout facilities. These vessels may exceed 200 feet in length and have drafts in excess of 20 feet. The commenters also stated that many, if not all, of these commercial vessels have been equipped with Type II marine sanitation devices, which are a flow-through type treatment devices as opposed to a Type III MSD which are a holding tank. They stated that to retrofit tugs and barges with holding tanks would cost several thousand dollars and the time in dry dock would cost several thousand dollars in lost revenue. Some commenters requested that commercial vessels be exempted from the prohibition since no pumpout facilities were available for their vessels due to size and draft requirements. The same commenters requested that the NDA apply only to recreational boaters. While many of the commercial vessels are equipped with Type II MSDs, there are several commercial operators that utilize Type III MSDs and have their holding tanks pumped out at facilities that are available in their home ports or that make arrangements with waste haulers to pumpout their holding tanks when they dock to load, unload or take on supplies and fuels. EPA concludes that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available. One commenter stated that 50% of the petroleum transported by tug/barge units was delivered to Albany, 29% of the petroleum was delivered to Newburgh and 21% of the petroleum was delivered to various terminals along the Hudson River. This commenter contended that the imposition of the NDA on all vessels will cause a disruption in the petroleum delivery system, unduly harm the tug and barge industry, result in hardship to the residents of New York State and serve no useful purpose in terms of improving water quality or protecting environmental resources. Based on this information, EPA has decided that the complete prohibition of discharge of vessel sewage will not apply for one year from the date ofFederal Registerpublication of this notice to commercial vessels which are greater than 225 feet in length or are greater than 20 feet in draft. The prohibition of discharge of vessel sewage will apply to all other vessels upon publication of this determination in theFederal Register.

The EPA hereby makes a final affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Hudson River, New York. A final determination on this matter will result in a New York State prohibition of any sewage discharges from vessels, with the exception of commercial vessels that are greater than 225 feet in length or are greater than 20 feet in draft, on the Hudson River from the Battery in Manhattan, New York to the Federal Dam at Troy, New York. For vessels that are greater than 225 feet in overall length or are greater than 20 feet in draft, the prohibition will be applicable on October 8, 2004.

The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES:

Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments December 8, 2003. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214 or via the Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.:3060-0711.

Title:Implementation of Section 34(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended bythe Telecommunications Act of 1996, (47 CFR Sections 1.5001-1.5007).

Form No.:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents:15.

Estimated Time Per Response:10 hours.

Frequency of Response:Third party disclosure and on occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden:150 hours.

Total Annual Cost:$48,000.

Needs and Uses:47 CFR Sections 1.5001-1.5007 implement Sction 34(a) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The rules provide filing requirements and procedures to expedite public utility holding company entry into the telecommunications industry. Persons seekings a determination of ETC status must file in good faith for determination by the Commission. The information will be used by the Commission to determine whether persons satisfy the statutory criteria for exempt telecommunications company status.

OMB Control No.:3060-0745.

Title:Implementation of the Local Exchange Carrier Tariff Streamlining Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-187.

Form No.:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents:1,520.

Estimated Time Per Response:0.33-9.0 hours.

Frequency of Response:Recordkeeping, third party disclosure and on occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden:1,150 hours.

Total Annual Cost:$5,100,000.

Needs and Uses:In CC Docket No. 96-187, the Commission adopted measures to streamline tariff filing requirements for local exchange carriers (LECs) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In order to achieve a streamlined and deregulatory environment for local exchanged carrier tariff filings, local exchange carriers are required to file tariffs electronically. Other carriers are permitted to file their tariffs electronically.

OMB Control No.:3060-0943.

Title:47 CFR Section 54.809, Carrier Certification.

Form No.:N/A.

Type of Review:Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents:Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents:27.

Estimated Time Per Response:1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response:Third Party Disclosure and annual reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden:41 hours.

Total Annual Cost:N/A.

Needs and Uses:Section 54.809 of the Commission's rules requires each price cap or competitve LEC that wishes to receive universal support to file an annual certification with the Universal Service Administrative Company and the Commission. The certification must state that the carrier will use its interstate access universal service support only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and service for which the support is intended.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website atwww.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 3, 2003.

Parts Open to the Public9:30 a.m. (CDT) Convene meeting1. Approval of minutes of the September 15, 2003, Board meeting.2. Thrift Savings Plan report by the Executive Director.Parts Closed to the Public3. Discussion of draft selection criteria for call center services.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Status:Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 120 people.

Background:The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (“the Board”) was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000 to advise the President, through the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines which have been promulgated by HHS as a final rule, advice on methods of dose reconstruction which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule, evaluation of the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstructions conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for qualified cancer claimants, and advice on the addition of classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort.

In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was renewed on August 3, 2003 and the President has completed the appointment of members to the Board to ensure a balanced representation on the Board.

Purpose:This board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this Program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class.

Matters to be Discussed:Agenda for this meeting will focus on Program Status Reports from NIOSH, Department of Labor, and Department of Energy; Research Issues; Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Report; Scientific Issues Workgroup Report; and a closed session to discuss Independent Government Cost Estimates.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to signFederal Registernotices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The National Center for Environmental Health published a document in the September 17, 2003, edition (Volume 68, Number 180, Pages 54460-54462) of theFederal Registerentitled “Final Recommendations for Protecting Human Health from Potential Adverse Effects of Exposure to Agents GA (Tabun), GB (Sarin), and VX.” A printing error altered a value in Table 1. The error has since been corrected. The document is being republished in its entirety for the convenience of the reader.

AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.

ACTION:

Notice of final recommendations for protecting human health from potential adverse effects of exposure to agents GA, GB, and VX.

SUMMARY:

Agents GA, GB, and VX are stored and are in the process of being destroyed by the Department of Defense (DoD). Public Law 99-145 (50 U.S.C. 1521) mandates that all unitary (self-contained) lethal chemical munitions be destroyed. Public Law 91-121 and Public Law 91-441 (50 U.S.C 1512) mandate that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) review DoD plans for disposing of these munitions and make recommendations to protect public health.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2005. An implementation period is necessary to allow the DoD to make program adjustments and allow time for changes to environmental permits as required.

On January 8, 2002, DHHS, CDC publishedproposed “Airborne Exposure Limits for Chemical Warfare Agents GA (tabun), GB (sarin) and VX” in theFederal Register(Vol. 67, No. 5, Pages 894-901, Tuesday, January 8, 2002), seeking public comment. This notice discusses major comments received, describes decisions regarding the public comments, and states the final recommendations. CDC received comments from the U.S. Army, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), state of Utah, U.S. Army contractors, and two individuals.

The comments fell into the following general categories: assumptions used in the risk assessment, selection of uncertainty factors, determination of the relative potency factor for the VX exposure limits, and technical feasibility of air monitoring at the lower exposure limits. The key comments potentially impacting CDC's recommendations are discussed below.

The U.S. Army recommended that adjustment in the risk assessment algorithm for breathing rate be eliminated because the critical endpoint in deriving the exposure limits is miosis, a clinical sign that is recognized as a local effect on the muscles of the iris of the eye. This biologic endpoint is widely considered to be a direct effect of the nerve agent vapor on the surface of the eye (not related to breathing rate). Scientists from CDC/NIOSH however, indicated that the data do not completely rule out the potential contribution of inhaled agent to the miosis effect. The weight of the scientific data appears to support the Army's recommendation on this matter, and CDC has decided to eliminate the breathing rate adjustment. Eliminating the breathing rate adjustment increases the worker population limit (WPL) by a factor of slightly more than two. No significant change in the general population limit (GPL) would occur by eliminating the breathing rate adjustment.

In the derivation of the WPL for GB, CDC/NIOSH experts recommended that an additional uncertainty factor of three be added to account for individual worker variability. Although workers are medically screened, the recommendation is a reasonable public health decision. CDC therefore has incorporated the additional uncertainty factor of three into the risk assessment algorithm. Making this adjustment lowers the exposure limits by a factor of three. This adjustment and elimination of the breathing rate factor suggested above essentially cancel each other.

In the derivation of the VX exposure limits by using relative potency, the Army questioned the use of a relative potency of 12 with the application of a modification factor of three for the incomplete VX data set. The application of a relative potency of 12 with a modifying factor of three effectively resulted in a relative potency of 36 between the calculated exposure limits for GB and VX. As discussed in the January 8, 2002,Federal Registerproposal, the relative potency factor of 12 was based on a 1971 British study that measured the ability of VX to cause 90 percent pupil constriction in rabbits. Because the critical effect in the study used to derive the GB exposure limit was miosis, CDC believes that miosis was appropriate to use as the health effect in determining the relative potency of VX. CDC/NIOSH experts and the state of Utah supported the proposed relative potency of 12 with a modifying factor of three. Therefore, CDC is retaining its relative potency assumptions for deriving the VX exposure limits.

As discussed in the January 8, 2002,Federal Registerproposal, CDC adjusted the VX GPL because available air-monitoring methods do not reliably detect VX at the calculated value of 3 × 10−8mg/m3. In the adjustment, CDC assumed that potential exposure would be identified and corrected within three days, precluding chronic exposure. Several people who provided comments pointed out that a similar adjustment also could have been made for the GB GPL. CDC recognizes that the assumptions used to derive the GPLs for GB and VX differ. Indeed, this adjustment could be applied to the GB exposure limits; however, the air-monitoring technology is currently functioning near the recommended level. CDC recommends no upward adjustment of the GB exposure limits; this recommendation is consistent with the accepted industrial hygiene practice of keeping exposure to the minimum practicable level.

The derivation of the VX exposure limits may be biased low because of the inadequate VX toxicity database. CDC believes that reliable air monitoring is a crucial aspect for implementing the exposure limits. Although CDC would have preferred a better toxicity database for VX, as well as improved air-monitoring methods for VX, these items are not currently available. Consequently, CDC is not further adjusting the final recommendation to the GPL for VX. However, CDC will reevaluate the VX exposure limits in the future if significant new VX toxicity data are available for setting exposure limits, new risk assessment evaluation methods are demonstrated superior to methods used herein, or substantive technological advances in air monitoring methods are made.

Army contractors and CDC/NIOSH experts expressed concerns about the technical feasibility of meeting the new exposure limits. On the basis of these comments, CDC has adjusted the VX short-term exposure limit (STEL) to 1 × 10−5mg/m3but added the provision that excursions to this special VX STEL should not occur more than once per day (in the typical STEL, four excursions per day are allowed). A lower STEL value would have required a longer response time for near real-time instruments; the recommended STEL is a result of balancing the detection capabilities and response time. A shorter instrument response time associated with the recommended STEL will minimize exposures. This adjustment to the VX STEL should not affect worker health.

To account for other technical feasibility concerns, CDC recommends that the GB and VX STEL be evaluated with near-real-time instrumentation, whereas the GB and VX WPLs and GPLs may be evaluated with longer-term historical air monitoring methods. CDC further recommends that, in implementing the WPLs, STELs and GPLs, specific reduction factors for statistical assurance of action at the exposure limits are not needed because of safety factors already built into the derivation of the exposure limit. This recommendation assumes that the sampling and analytical methods are measuring within ±25% of the true concentration 95% of the time. If this criterion is not met, an alarm level or action level below the exposure limit may be required.

The Army recently indicated to CDC that the exposure limits as listed and implemented in this announcement are technically feasible to detect with the instrumentation and methods currently in use. However, whether the agent destruction sites can monitor at these exposure limits and still meet current quality control standards has not been determined. To allow the Army to implement program changes, regulatory adjustments, and to evaluate quality control issues, the final recommended exposure limits will become effective January 1, 2005.

Final Recommendations: CDC presents final recommendations for airborne exposure limits (AELs) for the chemical warfare agents GA (tabun or ethyl N,N-dimethyl-phosphoramidocyanidate, CAS 77-81-6); GB (sarin or O-isopropyl-methylphosphonofluoridate, CAS 107-44-8); and VX (O-ethyl-S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl)-methylphosphonothiolate, CAS 50782-69-9). CDC based its recommendations on comments by scientific experts at a public meeting convened by CDC on August 23-24, 2000, in Atlanta, Georgia; the latest available technical reviews; and the risk assessment approach frequently used by regulatory agencies and other organizations. Additionally, CDC reviewed the substantial background information provided in the recent U.S. Army evaluations of the airborne exposure criteria for chemical warfare agents. AELs for chemical warfare agents GA, GB, and VX were reevaluated by using the conventional reference concentration risk assessment methodology for developing AELs described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This methodology is considered conservative; however, the calculated exposure limits are neither numerically precise values that differentiate between nonharmful and dangerous conditions, nor are they precise thresholds of potential human toxicity. The recommended changes to the AELs do not reflect change in, nor a refined understanding of, demonstrated human toxicity of these substances but rather the changes resulted from updated and minimally modified risk assessment assumptions. Overt adverse health effects have not been noted in association with the previously recommended exposure limits. This may be due to rigorous exposure prevention efforts in recent years as well as the conservative implementation of the existing limits (i.e., 8-hour time-weighted average exposure limits have been implemented as short-duration ceiling values).

Recommended AELs for GB:CDC recommends a WPL value of 3 × 10−5mg/m3, expressed as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). Additionally, CDC recommends a STEL of 1 × 10−4mg/m3to be used in conjunction with the WPL. Exposures at the STEL should not be longer than 15 minutes and should not occur more than four times per day, and at least 60 minutes should elapse between successive exposures in this range. The STEL should not be exceeded during the work day, even if the cumulative exposure over the 8-hour TWA is not exceeded. CDC recommends a decrease in the GPL to 1 × 10−6mg/m3. The WPLs and GPLs values are approximately threefold lower than levels previously recommended by CDC in 1988. An immediately-dangerous-to-life-or-health (IDLH) value of 0.1 mg/m3is recommended for GB.

Recommended AELs for GA:Although not as well-studied as GB, GA is believed to be approximately equal in potency to GB. Therefore, CDC recommends the same exposure limits for GA as for GB.

Recommended AELs for VX:CDC recommends that the VX WPL, expressed as an 8-hour TWA, be decreased to 1 × 10−6mg/m3. Additionally, CDC recommends a VX STEL of 1 × 10−5mg/m3. An excursion to the STEL should not occur more than one time per day (compared to four times per day for a typical STEL). The recommended WPL is a factor of 10 lower than the CDC's 1988 recommendation. CDC recommends that the GPL for VX be decreased to 6 × 10−7mg/m3(a factor of five lower than CDC's 1988 recommendation). An IDLH value of 0.003 mg/m3is recommended for VX. CDC's final recommendations are summarized in Table 1 below.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-MEN09OC03.000BILLING CODE 4163-18-C

CDC does not specifically recommend the use of these AELs for uses other than transportation, worker protection during the destruction process, or general population protection. For example, the 8-hour WPL historically has been used for the Army-designated 3X decontamination, surveillance activities of leaking containers in storage, and charcoal unit mid-beds. CDC did not evaluate the applicability of the WPLs for these activities; the specific technical and safety requirements for each activity need to be considered individually.

This announcement does not address the allowable stack concentration (ASC). The ASC is a ceiling value that serves as a destruction process source emission limit and not as a health standard. It typically is used for monitoring the furnace ducts and final exhaust stack, providing an early indication of an upset condition. Modeling of worst-case credible events and conditions at each installation should confirm that the WPL is not exceeded on-site or that the GPL is not exceeded at the installation boundary as a consequence of a release at or below the ASC.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to signFederal Registernotices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and ATSDR.

Dated: October 3, 2003.Alvin Hall,Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[FR Doc. 03-25583 Filed 10-8-03; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESAdministration for Children and FamiliesPresident's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID): Notice of MeetingAGENCY:

President's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID), HHS.

ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

DATES:

Thursday, October 16, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The full Committee meeting of the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities will be open to the public on Thursday, October 16, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Aerospace Center Building, Aerospace Auditorium, 6th Floor East, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations in order to attend and participate in the meeting (i.e.,interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative format) should notify Executive Director, Sally Atwater, at 202-619-0634 no later than October 1, 2003. Effort will be made to meet special requests received after that date, but availability of special needs accommodations to respond to these requests cannot be guaranteed. All meeting sites are barrier free.

Agenda:The Committee plans to discuss critical issues relating to individuals with intellectual disabilities concerning education and transition, family services and support, public awareness, employment, and assistive technology and information.

The PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services, and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities. The Committee, by Executive Order, is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices in programs, services and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities, and for reviewing legislative proposals that impact the quality of life that is experienced by citizens with intellectual disabilities and their families.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) granting special termination of the debarment of Amirul Islam. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Islam provided substantial assistance in the investigations or prosecutions of offenses relating to a matter under FDA's jurisdiction and that special termination of Mr. Islam's debarment serves the interest of justice and does not threaten the integrity of the drug approval process.

In aFederal Registernotice dated August 27, 1997 (62 FR 45423), Amirul Islam, the former vice president of technical services for Halsey Drug Co. Inc. (Halsey), and supervisor of Halsey's Quality Control Laboratory, was permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 306(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) of the act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) and section 201(dd) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(dd))). The debarment was based on FDA's finding that Mr. Islam was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval of any drug product, or otherwise relating to the regulation of a drug product (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)). On December 12, 1997, Mr. Islam applied for special termination of debarment under section 306(d)(4)(a) of the act, as amended by the Generic Drug Enforcement Act (GDEA).

Under section 306(d)(4)(C) and (D) of the act, FDA may limit the period of debarment of a permanently debarred individual if the agency finds that: (1) The debarred individual has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of offenses described in section 306(a) or (b) of the act or relating to a matter under FDA's jurisdiction, (2) termination of the debarment serves the interest of justice, and (3) termination of the debarment does not threaten the integrity of the drug approval process. Special termination of debarment is discretionary with FDA.

FDA considers a determination by the Department of Justice concerning the substantial assistance of a debarred individual conclusive in most cases. Mr. Islam cooperated with the Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions of others, as substantiated by the letters submitted to the agency by the Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Islam's case. Accordingly, FDA finds that Mr. Islam provided substantial assistance as required by section 306(d)(4)(C) of the act.

The additional requisite showings that termination of debarment serves the interest of justice and poses no threat to the integrity of the drug approval process are difficult standards to satisfy. In determining whether these have been met, the agency weighs the significance of all favorable and unfavorable factors in light of the remedial, public health-related purposes underlying debarment. Termination of debarment will not be granted unless, weighing all favorable and unfavorable information, there is a high level of assurance that the conduct that formed the basis for the debarment has not recurred and will not recur, and that the individual will not otherwise pose a threat to the integrity of the drug approval process.

The evidence presented to FDA in support of termination shows that Mr. Islam was convicted for a first offense, that he has no prior or subsequent convictions for conduct described under the GDEA and has committed no other wrongful acts affecting the drug approval process, and that his characterand scientific ability are highly regarded by his professional peers. The evidence presented supports the conclusion that the conduct upon which Mr. Islam's debarment was based is unlikely to recur. For these reasons, the agency finds that termination of Mr. Islam's debarment serves the interest of justice and will not pose a threat to the integrity of the drug approval process. FDA's analysis in reaching this conclusion is contained in the docket.

Under section 306(d)(4)(D)(ii) of the act, the period of debarment of an individual who qualifies for special termination may be limited to less than permanent but to no less than 1 year. Mr. Islam's period of debarment has lasted more than 1 year. Accordingly, the Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(d)(4) of the act and under authority delegated to him (21 CFR 5.20), finds that Amirul Islam's application for special termination of debarment should be granted, and that the period of debarment should terminate immediately, thereby allowing him to provide services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application. The Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs further finds that because Mr. Islam has waived his right to a hearing, and the agency is granting Mr. Islam's application, an informal hearing under section 306(d)(4)(C) of the act is unnecessary.

As a result of the foregoing findings, Amirul Islam's debarment is terminated effective October 9, 2003 (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(4)(C) and (d)(4)(D)).

This notice announces that TSA has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published aFederal Registernotice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on June 24, 2003, 68 FR 37510.

DATES:

Send your comments by November 10, 2003. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: DHS-TSA Desk Officer, at (202) 395-5806.

Abstract:TSA intends to evaluate and test certain technologies and business processes in the Technology Evaluation and Prototype Phases of the pilot project to fully develop the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC). TSA will gather demographic information required to issue credentials to a select group of transportation workers and then administer two instruments to collect data on the effectiveness of the TWIC credential. The first instrument will be a survey of a small representative percent of the TWIC users and the second instrument will be interviews conducted with the lead stakeholder at each site participating in the Technology Evaluation and Prototype Phases. Surveys and interviews will be voluntary and anonymous.

Number of Respondents:30,780.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours:5,195.

TSA is soliciting comments to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

DATES:

Comments Due Date:December 8, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8003, Washington, DC 20410, orWayne_Eddins@hud.gov.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,e.g.,permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal:Rental Schedule—Low Rent Housing.

OMB Control Number, if applicable:2502-0012.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:This information is necessary for HUD to ensure that tenant rents are approved in accordance with HUD administrative procedures. Project owners utilize form HUD-92458 when requesting an adjustment to project rents due to anticipated or unavoidable increases in operating costs.

Agency form numbers, if applicable:HUD-92458.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:The estimated number of respondents is 16,000 generating approximately 16,000 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; the estimated time needed to prepare the response is 20 minutes; and the estimated total number of annual burden hours is 5,280.

Status of the proposed information collection:Extension of a currently approved collection.

The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531et seq.). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests.

DATES:

Comments on these permit applications must be received on or before November 10, 2003 to receive our consideration.

ADDRESSES:

Written data or comments should be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chief, Endangered Species, Ecological Services, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (fax: 503-231-6243). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to the address above (telephone: 503-231-2063). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when requesting copies of documents.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Sonoma County distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in conjunction with surveys in Sonoma County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, and release) the Stephen's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensii) in conjunction with surveys in Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No. TE-076768Applicant:Lisa Schicker, Los Osos, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (translocate) the Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis) in conjunction with translocation activities and scientific research from Laysan to Midway Atoll, Hawaiian Islands, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (collect larvae) the Borax Lake chub (Gila boraxobius) in conjunction with research in Harney County, Oregon, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No. TE-077053Applicant:Jeffrey Manning, Fallbrook, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) in conjunction with surveys in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No. TE-050450Applicant:Lisa Allen, Dana Point, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey and collect and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), the longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus wootoni), the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey and collect and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), the longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus wootoni), the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No. TE-077388Applicant:Oregon Zoo, Portland, Oregon.

The applicant requests a permit to take (captive breed) the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) in conjunction with a recovery program for the species in Multnomah County, Oregon, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No. TE-077392Applicant:Peter Waldburger, Los Osos, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a re-opening of the comment period for public review of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) for an additional 60 days. The original comment period closed on September 29, 2003. We are re-opening the comment period in response to specific requests from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Foundation to allow additional time for public review of this draft recovery plan. This draft recovery plan includes recovery criteria and measures for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

DATES:

Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before December 8, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of the draft recovery plan are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone 805-644-1766). Requests for copies of the draft recovery plan and written comments and materials regarding the plan should be addressed to the Field Supervisor at the above address. An electronic copy of this draft recovery plan is also available athttp://www.r1.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carl Benz, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 30, 2003, we published a Notice of Availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep, opening a 60-day public comment period that is scheduled to end on September 29, 2003. We have received requests from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Foundation to extend the comment period so that they might more thoroughly review the plan. Based on these requests, we determined to re-open the comment period for public review of this draft recovery plan.

Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531et seq.). Recovery means improvement of the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the measures needed for recovery.

The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during the public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised recovery plan. Substantive technical comments may result in changes to the plan. Substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation may not necessarily result in changes to the recovery plan, but will be forwarded to appropriate Federal or other entities so that they can take these comments into account during the course of implementing recovery actions.

This draft recovery plan was developed by the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team. We coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, and a team of stakeholders, which included ranchers, landowners and managers, agency representatives, and non-government organizations.

The population of bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada of California was listed as an endangered species on January 3, 2000, (65 FR 20) following emergency listing on April 20, 1999, (64 FR 19300). At the time of listing, the bighorn sheep population was very small, with only about 125 adults known to exist among 5 geographic areas, with little probability of interchange among those areas. The bighorn sheep is threatened primarily by transmission of disease from domestic sheep and goats, and predation by mountain lions. Key elements for immediate action are: (1) Predator management; (2) augmentation of small herds with sheep from larger ones; and (3) elimination of the threat of a pneumonia epizootic resulting from contact with domestic sheep or goats. Actions needed to recover the bighornsheep include: (1) Protection of bighorn sheep habitat; (2) increase population growth by enhancing survivorship and reproductive output of bighorn sheep; (3) increase the numbers of herds, and thereby the number of bighorn sheep; (4) develop and implement a genetic management plan to maintain genetic diversity; (5) monitor status and trends of bighorn sheep herds and their habitat; (6) research; and (7) providing information to the public.

Public Comments Solicited

We solicit written comments on the draft recovery plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered in developing a final recovery plan.

Authority:

The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

Topics to be covered during the ANS Task Force meeting include: an update of activities from each of the Task Force's regional panels; status and updates from several other Task Force committees and working groups including the Prevention Committee, the Asian Carp working group, and the New Zealand mud snail working group, review of State ANS Management Plans from Hawaii, Indiana and Wisconsin; an update on ballast water management activities; an update on the activities of the National Invasive Species Council; a discussion on the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act; and other topics.

Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Suite 810, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1622, and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Proposed Farmington Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The revised plan addressed the oil and gas estate administered by BLM in the Farmington Field Office and the Albuquerque Field Office; the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Jicarilla District of the Carson National Forest; portions of the Coyote and Cuba Districts of the Santa Fe National Forest, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for lands surrounding Navajo Reservoir. Other issues relating to landownership adjustments, Off-Highway Vehicle management, Specially Designated Areas, and coal leasing suitability were addressed only for lands administered by the Farmington Field Office. The USFS and BOR were cooperating agencies in preparation of the RMP. The Final EIS and Proposed RMP were available for protest from April 4, 2003, to May 5, 2003. All protests and comments were considered during the preparation of the ROD.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of the ROD have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local Government agencies and to interested parties. The document will be available electronically on the following Web site:http://www.nm.blm.gov/.Copies of the ROD are available for public inspection at the following BLM office locations: Farmington Field Office, 1235 La Plata Highway, Farmington, NM 87401; and Albuquerque Field Office, 435 Montano Rd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87107.

This ROD approves the proposed revision to the Farmington RMP. The RMP provides guidance for managing approximately 1,415,300 acres of public land and 3,020,693 acres of Federal minerals in San Juan, McKinley, Rio Arriba and Sandoval Counties. The overall planning area encompasses 8,274,100 acres.

The ROD approves new decisions concerning oil and gas leasing and development, Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) designations, landownership adjustments, management of Specially Designated Areas, and coal leasing suitability. These decisions are intended to replace goals, objectives, management actions and conditions of use described in the 1988 Farmington RMP and subsequent amendments related to these matters. No other decisions of the 1988 Farmington RMP or amendments are affected.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Front Range Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.

DATES:

The meeting will be held on November 13, 2003, at the Holy Cross Abbey Community Center, 2951 E. Highway 50, Canon City, Colorado beginning at 9:15 a.m. The public comment period will begin at approximately 9:30 a.m. and the meeting will adjourn at approximately 4 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15 member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Front Range Center, Colorado. Planned agenda topics include Manager updates on current land management issues and an update on the Gold Belt Travel Management Plan.

All meetings are open to the public. The public is encouraged to make oral comments to the Council at 9:30 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the Council Meeting will be maintained in the Front Range Center Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.

The surface estate of land located in St. Louis County, Minnesota is being considered for a noncompetitive permit pursuant to section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1732).

The Bureau of Land Management proposes to offer the use of the surface estate of the following described lands to Mr. David M. Stanton, by noncompetitive permit, at fair market value. The permit will allow for continued habitation on the site by Mr. Stanton and will resolve an inadvertent unauthorized use of public land.

Fourth Principal MeridianTownship 62 North, Range 17 West, Tract 37

The above lands aggregate 0.18 acre more or less.

The permit will be issued for 3 years. The permit may be renewed, in accordance with 43 CFR 2920.1-1(b) with the right of renewal through the remainder of Mr. Stanton's life. Upon expiration of the permitted use, all improvements will be removed from the public lands and the site rehabilitated. This action is consistent with the Minnesota Management Framework Plan and would serve important public objectives, which could not be achieved by other means. The planning document and environmental assessment covering the proposed permit are available for review at the Bureau of Land Management, Milwaukee Field Office, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

For a period until November 24, 2003, interested parties may submit comments to the Field Manager, Milwaukee Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 200, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4617. Any adverse comments will be evaluated by the State Director, Eastern States Office, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any objections, this proposed realty action will become final.

This notice is being published in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR 2920.4.

Dated: September 17, 2003.James W. Dryden,Milwaukee Field Manager.[FR Doc. 03-25615 Filed 10-8-03; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310-PN-PDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBureau of Land Management[NV-050-1430-ES; N-74355]Notice of Realty Action: Conveyance for Recreation and Public PurposesAGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management.

ACTION:

Notice of realty action.

SUMMARY:

The following described public land in the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, has been examined and found suitable for conveyance for recreational or public purposes under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869et. seq.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anna Wharton, Supervisory Realty Specialist, (702) 515-5095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The following described public land in theLas Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, has been examined and found suitable for conveyance for recreational or public purposes under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869et. seq.).

The Clark County School District proposes to use the land for the maintenance, parking, cleaning, and fueling of school busses and as a radio communications center.

The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The conveyance is consistent with current Bureau planning for this area and would be in the public interest. The patent, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and will contain the following reservations to the United States:

1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).

2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. and will be subject to:

1. All valid and existing rights. The lands have been segregated from all forms of appropriation under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (Pub. L. 105-263). Detailed information concerning this action is available for review at the office of the Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV, or by calling (702) 515-5000.

On October 9, 2003, the above described land will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for conveyance under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws and disposal under the mineral material disposal laws.

For a period until November 24, 2003, interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed conveyance for classification of the lands to the Las Vegas Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130-2301.

Classification Comments:Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for a bus yard/communications center. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.

Application Comments:Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the lands for a bus yard/communications center. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, these realty actions will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. The classification of the land described in this Notice will become effective December 8, 2003. The lands will not be offered for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.

Notice of Closure to Off-Highway Vehicle and recreation Use on public lands in Bannock County, Idaho.

SUMMARY:

With the publication of this notice, all public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management within the 2,234 acres of the Blackrock Fire (F947), including designated roads and trails are closed to all motorized vehicles, mountain biking, camping, horseback riding and other recreational activities. The closure will remain in effect until July 15, 2006 or until such time as the authorized officer of the Pocatello Field Office determines the closure may be lifted.

Exceptions to this Order are Granted to the Following:Law enforcement patrol, emergency services, and administratively approved access for actions such as monitoring, research studies, and access to private lands.

Other actions would be considered on a case-by-case basis by the authorized officer.

This closure is a direct result of the Blackrook Fire, which burned this area in July, 2003 and of the subsequent rehabilitation efforts of the BLM. The closure will promote the reestablishment of vegetation, improve the potential for recovery of wildlife habitat, and reduce the potential for erosion and noxious weed invasion.

The closure is in accordance with 43 CFR 9268.3(d)(1). Violation of this order is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months.

The area of closure and impoundment affected by this notice is the burned portion of public lands administered by the BLM, specially described wholly or partially:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plats of the amended protraction diagrams of the lands described below in the BLM Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, (30) days from the date of publication in theFederal Register.

The amended protraction diagrams were prepared at the request of the U.S. Forest Service and are necessary to accommodate Revision of Primary Base Quadrangle Maps for the Geometronics Service Center. The lands for the prepared amended protraction diagrams are:

We will place copies of the plats of the amended protraction diagrams we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information.

If BLM receives a protest against these amended protraction diagrams, as shown on these plats, prior to the date of the official filings, we will stay the filings pending our consideration of the protest.

We will not officially file these plats of the amended protraction diagrams until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.

The reserved Federally-owned mineral interest, in the private lands described in this notice, aggregating approximately 4,000 acres, are segregated and made unavailable for filings under the general mining laws and the mineral leasing laws. The segregation is in response to an application for mineral conveyance under section 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1719).

The reserved Federal mineral interests will be conveyed in whole or in part upon completion of a mineral examination. The purpose is to allow consolidation of surface and subsurface minerals ownership where there are no known mineral values or in those instances where the Federal mineral interest reservation interferes with or precludes appropriate nonmineral development and such development is a more beneficial use of the land than the mineral development. Upon publication of this Notice of Segregation in theFederal Registeras provided in 43 CFR 2720.1-1(b), the mineral interests owned by the United States in the lands covered by the mineral conveyance application are segregated to the extent that they will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws. The segregative effect shall terminate upon: issuance of a patent or deed of such mineral interest; upon final rejection of the mineral conveyance application; or October 11, 2005, whichever occurs first.

This notice announces the opening of additional Nixon presidential historical materials. Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with section 104 of Title I of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA, 44 U.S.C. 2111 note) and 1275.42(b) of the PRMPA Regulations implementing the Act (36 CFR part 1275), the agency has identified, inventoried, and prepared for public access approximately 240 hours of Nixon White House tape recordings among the Nixon Presidential historical materials.

DATES:

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) intends to make the materials described in this notice available to the public beginning December 10, 2003. In accordance with 36 CFR 1275.44, any person who believes it necessary to file a claim of legal right or privilege concerning access to these materials should notify the Archivist of the United States in writing of the claimed right, privilege, or defense on or before November 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

The materials will be made available to the public at the National Archives at College Park research room, located at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland, beginning at 8:45 a.m.

Petitions asserting a legal or constitutional right or privilege which would prevent or limit access must be sent to the Archivist of the United States, National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001.

NARA is proposing to open approximately 3073 conversations which were recorded at the Nixon White House from July 1972 to October 1972. These tape segments total approximately 240 hours of listening time.

This is the tenth opening of Nixon White House tapes since 1980. Previous releases included conversations constituting “abuses of governmental power” and conversations recorded in the Cabinet Room of the Nixon White House. NARA is processing the remaining tapes, which cover the period February 1971 to July 1973. The tapes now being proposed for opening consist of the fourth of five segments.

There are no transcripts for these tapes. Tape logs, prepared by NARA, are offered for public access as a finding aid to the tape segments and a guide for thelistener. There is a separate tape log entry for each segment of conversation released. Each tape log entry includes the names of participants; date, time, and location of the conversation; and an outline of the content of the conversation.

The tape recordings will be made available to the general public in the research room at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland, Monday through Friday between 8:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Researchers must have a NARA researcher card, which they may obtain when they arrive at the facility. Listening stations will be available for public use on a first come, first served basis. NARA reserves the right to limit listening time in response to heavy demand. Copies of the tape log will be available for a fee in accordance with 36 CFR 1258.12.

• Minutes• Approval of Minutes• Comments from the Chair• Status of NWP Task Force Report• Reports form Working Groups (K-12, Undergraduate Graduate)• Report from Subcommittee on SE Indicators• Status Report on follow-up of the August 12th Workshop on Broadening Participation• Report from the EHR AD• New Business

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16 to Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee), the operator of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2). Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67 authorizes operation of St. Lucie, Unit 1, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 2700 megawatts thermal in accordance with the provisions of the St. Lucie, Unit 1, renewed license and its Technical Specifications. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16 authorizes operation of St. Lucie, Unit 2, by the licensee at reactor core power levels not in excess of 2700 megawatts thermal in accordance with the provisions of the St. Lucie, Unit 2, renewed license and its Technical Specifications.

St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, are pressurized, light water moderated and cooled, nuclear reactors located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida.

The applications for the renewed licenses complied with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. As required by the Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, the Commission has made appropriate findings, which are set forth in each license. Prior public notice of the action involving the proposed issuance of these renewed licenses and of an opportunity for a hearing regarding the proposed issuance of these renewed licenses was published in theFederal Registeron December 27, 2001 (66 FR 66946).

For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the Florida Power and Light Company's renewal application for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, dated November 29, 2001, as supplemented by letters dated January 8, June 25, August 26, September 26 (four letters), October 3, October 10, November 27, December 23, 2002, and January 9, February 4, March 27 (two letters), March 28, April 25, May 30, June 10, and June 23, 2003; (2) the Commission's safety evaluation report, September 2003 (NUREG-1779); (3) the licensee's updated final safety analysis report; and (4) the Commission's final environmental impact statements (NUREG-1437), Supplement 11, for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, dated May 19, 2003. These documents are available at the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, first floor, Rockville, Maryland 20852, and can be viewed from the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Copies of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NFP-16 may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Director, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs. Copies of the safety evaluation report (NUREG-1779), and the final environmental impact statements (NUREG-1437), Supplement 11, for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2 may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161-0002 (http://www.ntis.gov), 1-800-553-6847, or the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, requestor's Government Printing Office deposit account number or VISA or MasterCard number and expiration date.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, section 50.44, section 50.46, and appendix K, for Facility Operating License No. NPF-49, issued to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut (the licensee), for operation of the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MP3), located in Waterford, Connecticut. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental AssessmentIdentification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt MP3 from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, section 50.44, section 50.46 and appendix K, to allow the use of up to eight Lead Test Assemblies (LTAs) fabricated with Optimized ZIRLO, a cladding material that contains a nominally lower tin content than previously approved cladding materials.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated July 1, 2003.

The Need for the Proposed Action

As the nuclear industry pursues longer operating cycles with increased fuel discharge burnups and more aggressive fuel management, the corrosion performance specifications for the nuclear fuel cladding become more demanding. Industry data indicates that corrosion resistance improves for cladding with a lower tin content. The optimum tin level provides a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining the benefits of mechanical strengthening and resistance to accelerated corrosion from abnormal chemistry conditions. In addition, fuel rod internal pressures (resulting from the increased fuel duty, use of integral fuel burnable absorbers and corrosion/temperature feedback effects) have become more limiting with respect to fuel rod design criteria. By reducing the associated corrosion buildup, and thus, minimizing temperature feedback effects, additional margin to fuel rod internal pressure design criteria is obtained.

As part of a program to address these issues, the Westinghouse Electric Company has developed an LTA program, in cooperation with the licensee, that includes a fuel cladding with a tin content lower than the currently licensed range for ZIRLO. The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 50, section 50.44, section 50.46, and appendix K, make no provision for use of fuel rods clad in a material other than Zircalloy or ZIRLO. The licensee has requested the use of up to eight LTAs with a tin composition that is less than that specified in the licensing basis for ZIRLO, as defined in Westinghouse design specifications. Therefore, use of the LTAs calls for exemptions from 10 CFR part 50, section 50.44, section 50.46, and appendix k.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The NRC staff has completed its environmental evaluation of theproposed action and concludes that the proposed exemptions would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed, and would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents.

The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for MP3, dated December 1984.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

On August 22, 2003, the staff consulted with the Connecticut State official, Mr. Michael Firsick, of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated July 1, 2003. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail topdr@nrc.gov.

The ACNW will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on October 21, 2003, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Tuesday, October 21, 2003—8:30 a.m.-10 a.m.

The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.

Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Howard J. Larson (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

1 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Biosphere Scenarios and Dose Calculation Working Group(Open)—The Committee will review the agenda and speakers for the Biosphere Working Group scheduled for February 24-26, 2004 in Rockville, Maryland.

1:30 p.m.-2 p.m.: Site Visit—Yucca Mountain, Nevada(Open)—The Committee will finalize its November 18, 2003, trip to Yucca Mountain and the Amargosa Valley, and its subsequent technical discussions in Las Vegas, NV with DOE representatives and stakeholders during the 147th ACNW Meeting, November 19-20, 3004.

2:15 p.m.-6 p.m.: Committee Retreat(Open/Closed)—The Committee will continue its discussion (from the 145th meeting) on technical topics it intends to examine over the next 12 to 18 months and ACNW activities and related matters.

Note:

A portion of this session may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

8:35 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: Yucca Mountain Pre-Closure Safety and Drift Degradation Issues(Open)—The Committee will hear from representatives of the NRC staff on these issues. Presentations will include a summation of the status of related agreements, a demonstration of the pre-closure safety analysis tool, and the MECH-FAIL computer code used to evaluate drift degradation within a geologic repository.

1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Updated Staff Performance Assessment Code TPA 5.0 and Peer Review Comments(Open)—The Committee will hear from representatives of the NRC staff on the updated TPA Code 5.0 and how external peer review comments were incorporated into the code.

4 p.m.-6 p.m.: Preparation for Meeting with the NRC Commissioners(Open)—The next meeting with the NRC Commissioners is scheduled to be held at 10 a.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room, One White Flint North on October 23, 2003. The Committee will review its proposed presentations.

2:45 p.m.-3 p.m.: Miscellaneous(Open)—The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in theFederal Registeron October 11, 2002 (67 FR 63459). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Mr. Howard J. Larson, Special Assistant (Telephone 301/415-6805), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET, as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Howard J. Larson as to their particular needs.

Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefore can be obtained by contacting Mr. Howard J. Larson.

ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room atpdr@nrc.gov,or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.htmlorhttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/(ACRS ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).

Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW Audiovisual Technician (301/415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.

OMB announces the issuance of Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis. This Circular provides the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis as required under Section 6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, and a variety of related authorities. The Circular also provides guidance to agencies on the regulatory accounting statements that are required under the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. The new Circular can be accessed through the OMB Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html).

This Circular refines OMB's “best practices” document of 1996 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/riaguide.html), which was issued as a guidance in 2000 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m00-08.pdf), and reaffirmed in 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-23.html). It replaces both the 1996 “best practices” and the 2000 guidance.

The effective date of this Circular is January 1, 2004 for regulatory analyses received by OMB in support of proposed rules, and January 1, 2005 for regulatory analyses received by OMB in support of final rules. In other words, this Circular applies to the regulatory analyses for draft proposed rules that are formally submitted to OIRA after December 31, 2003, and for draft final rules that are formally submitted to OIRA after December 31, 2004. (However, if the draft proposed rule is subject to the Circular, then the draft final rule will also be subject to the Circular, even if it is submitted prior to January 1, 2005.) To the extent practicable, agencies should comply earlier than these effective dates. Agencies may, on a case-by-case basis, seek a waiver from OMB if these effective dates are impractical.

A draft of this Circular was developed by OMB and the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). The draft was subject to public comment, external peer review, and interagency review.

In accordance with § 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. § 460bb note, Title I of Public Law 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, California.

The purposes of this meeting are to: (1) Introduce the new members of the Board of the Trust; (2) provide the Executive Director's general status report; (3) hear from the three short-listed teams responding to a Request for Proposals for the rehabilitation and reuse of the Public Health Service Hospital (PHSH) complex; (4) receive oral scoping comments under the National Environmental Policy Act on the Trust's proposed environmental review for the PHSH project; and (5) receive public comment in accordance with the Trust's Public Outreach Policy.

Time:

The meeting will be held commencing at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 2003.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Officers' Club, 50 Moraga Avenue, Presidio of San Francisco.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

(1)Collection title:Vocational Report.

(2)Form(s) submitted:G-251.

(3)OMB Number:3220-0141.

(4)Expiration date of current OMB clearance:11/30/2003.

(5)Type of request:Extension of a currently approved collection.

(6)Respondents:Individuals or households.

(7)Estimated annual number of respondents:6,000.

(8)Total annual responses:6,000.

(9)Total annual reporting hours:3,045.

(10)Collection description:Section 2 the Railroad Retirement Act provides for the payment of disability annuities to qualified employees and widower(s). The collection obtains the information needed to determine their ability to work.

Additional Information or Comments:Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363).

Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092, and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.

Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by October 27, 2003, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After October 27, 2003, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.

Gulf Power Company (70-10154)

Gulf Power Company (“Gulf”), One Energy Place, Pensacola, Florida 32520, a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of The Southern Company (“Southern”), 270 Peachtree Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, a registered holding company, has filed an application-declaration (“Application”) under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12 (b) of the Act and rules 45, 52 and 54. Gulf proposes to organize one or more subsidiaries for the purpose of effecting various financing transactions involving the issuance and sale of an aggregate of $150,000,000 of preferred securities, from time to time, through December 31, 2006.

In connection with the issuance of the preferred securities, Gulf proposes to organize one or more separate subsidiaries as a business trust under the laws of the State of Florida or a statutory trust under the laws of the State of Delaware or another comparable trust in any jurisdiction, or any other entity or structure, foreign or domestic, that is considered advantageous by Gulf (individually a “Trust” and collectively the “Trusts”).1Gulf proposes that the Trusts will issue and sell from time to time preferred securities, as described in this Application (the “Preferred Securities”), with a specified par or stated value or liquidation amount or preference per security. Gulf requests the Commission to reserve jurisdiction over the use of a foreign entity as a Trust.

1Applicants state that the ability to use trusts in financing transactions can sometimes offer increased state and/or federal tax efficiency. Increased tax efficiency can result if a trust is located in a state or country that has tax laws that make the proposed financing transaction more tax efficient relative to the company's existing taxing jurisdiction. Decreasing tax exposure, however, is usually not the primary goal when establishing a trust. Use of a trust can provide potentially significant benefits to a company, even without a net improvement in its tax position. Trusts can increase a company's ability to access new sources of capital by enabling it to undertake financing transactions with features and terms attractive to a wider investor base. Trusts can be established in jurisdictions or on terms favorable to the sponsoring company and, at the same time, give targeted investors attractive incentives to invest and so provide financing. Many of these investors would not be participants in the company's bank group and, typically, would not hold company bonds or commercial paper. Consequently, they represent potential new sources of capital.

Gulf has a total amount of $115,000,000 of Preferred Securities issued and outstanding through Trusts, as of June 30, 2003. The outstanding Preferred Securities were issued through Trusts rather than directly by Gulf as subordinated debt because certain rating agencies recognize preferred securities of this kind, issued through trusts, as having some equity content, rather than directly issued subordinated debt, which has no equity content. Gulf states that transactions of the Trusts are reported by Gulf on its financial statements and asserts that it is desirable for Gulf to continue to maintain a degree of similarity in its financial statements by issuing Preferred Securities through the Trusts rather than directly issuing subordinated debt.2

2Gulf notes that it reclassified $115,000,000 of outstanding mandatorily redeemable Preferred Securities as liabilities, effective July 1, 2003, pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Statement No. 150 “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with the Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity.” In May 2003, FASB issued Statement 150, which requires reclassification of certain financial instruments within its scope, including shares that are mandatorily redeemable as liabilities, and Statement No. 150 is currently effective. Gulf states that the reclassification as a result of implementation of Statement No. 150 did not have a material effect on its Statements of Income and Cash Flows.

Gulf currently is authorized to issue Preferred Securities in an aggregate amount of up to $30,000,000 through December 31, 2005, pursuant to Commission orders dated January 16, 1998 and June 8, 2001 (HCAR No. 26817 and HCAR No. 27417, respectively). Gulf proposes that this Application's authorization of $150,000,000 supersede and replace the amounts remaining in these previous authorizations.

Gulf states that it will acquire all of the common stock of any Trust for an amount not less than the minimum required by any applicable law and not exceeding 21% of the total equity capitalization from time to time of the Trust (i.e., the aggregate of the equity accounts of such Trust).3The aggregate of such investment by Gulf hereafter is referred to as the “Equity Contribution.” Gulf may issue and sell to any Trust, at any time or from time to time in one or more series, subordinated debentures, promissory notes or other debt instruments (individually a “Note” and collectively the “Notes”) governed by an indenture or other document. The Trust will apply both the Equity Contribution made to it and the proceeds from the sale of Preferred Securities by it, from time to time, to purchase Notes. Alternatively, Gulf may enter into a loan agreement or agreements with any Trust under which the Trust will lend Gulf (individually a “Loan” and collectively the “Loans”) both the Equity Contribution to the Trust and the proceeds from the sale of the Preferred Securities by the Trust, from time totime. Gulf will issue Notes, evidencing such borrowings, to the Trust.

3The constituent instruments of each Trust, including its Trust Agreement, will provide, among other things, that the Trust's activities will be limited to the issuance and sale of Preferred Securities, from time to time, and the lending to Gulf of (i) the resulting proceeds, (ii) the Equity Contribution to the Trust, and (iii) certain other related activities. Consequently, Gulf proposes that a Trust's constituent instruments will not include any interest or dividend coverage nor will a Trust have capitalization ratio restrictions on its ability to issue and sell Preferred Securities. Because each issuance will be supported by a Note and Guaranty, capitalization ratio restrictions would not be relevant or necessary to enable a Trust to maintain an appropriate capital structure. Furthermore, each Trust's constituent instruments will state that its common stock is not transferable (except to certain permitted successors), that its business and affairs will be managed and controlled by Gulf (or permitted successor), and that Gulf (or permitted successor) will pay all expenses of the Trust.

Gulf also proposes to guarantee (individually a “Guaranty” and collectively the “Guaranties”) (i) payment of dividends or distributions on the Preferred Securities of any Trust if, and to the extent, the Trust has funds legally available, (ii) payments to the Preferred Securities holders of amounts due upon liquidation of the Trust or redemption of the Preferred Securities of such Trust and (iii) certain additional amounts that may be payable by the Preferred Securities. Gulf's credit would support any Guaranty.

Gulf states that each Note will have a term of up to fifty (50) years. Prior to maturity, Gulf will pay interest only on the Notes at a rate equal to the dividend or distribution rate on the related series of Preferred Securities, which dividend or distribution rate may be either fixed or adjustable, to be determined on a periodic basis by auction or remarketing procedures, in accordance with a formula or formulae based upon certain reference rates, or by other predetermined methods.4

The interest payments will constitute each respective Trust's only income and will be used by it to pay dividends or distributions on its Preferred Securities and dividends or distributions on its common stock. Dividend payments or distributions on the Preferred Securities will be made on a monthly or other periodic basis and must be made to the extent that the Trust issuing the Preferred Securities has legally available funds and cash sufficient for such purposes. However, Gulf may have the right to defer payment of interest on any issue of Notes for five or more years. Each Trust will have the parallel right to defer dividend payments or distributions on the related series of Preferred Securities for five or more years, provided that, if dividends or distributions on the Preferred Securities of any series are not paid for eighteen (18) or more consecutive months, then the holders of the Preferred Securities of such series may have the right to appoint a trustee, special general partner or other special representative to enforce the Trust's rights under the related Note and Guaranty. The dividend or distribution rates, payment dates, redemption and other similar provisions of each series of Preferred Securities will be substantially identical to the interest rates, payment dates, redemption and other provisions of the Notes issued.

4The Preferred Securities of any series may be redeemable at the option of the Trust issuing the series (with the consent or at the direction of Gulf) at a price equal to their par or stated value or liquidation amount or preference, plus any accrued and unpaid dividends or distributions, (i) at any time after a specified date not later than approximately ten (10) years from their date of issuance, or (ii) upon the occurrence of certain events, among them that (a) the Trust is required to withhold or deduct certain amounts in connection with dividend, distribution or other payments or is subject to federal income tax with respect to interest received on the Notes issued to the Trust, or (b) it is determined that the interest payments by Gulf on the related Notes are not deductible for income tax purposes, or (c) the Trust becomes subject to regulation as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended. The Preferred Securities of any series may also be subject to mandatory redemption upon the occurrence of certain events. Gulf also may have the right in certain cases, or in its discretion, to exchange the Preferred Securities of any Trust for the Notes or other junior subordinated debt issued to the Trust. In addition, rather than issuing Preferred Securities of a Trust, Gulf may instead issue Notes or other junior subordinated debt directly to purchasers.

Gulf states that the Notes and related Guaranties will be subordinate to all other existing and future unsubordinated indebtedness for borrowed money of Gulf and will have no cross-default provisions with respect to other indebtedness of Gulf (i.e., a default under any other outstanding indebtedness of Gulf would not result in a default under any Note or Guaranty). However, Gulf may be prohibited from declaring and paying dividends on its outstanding capital stock and making payments in respect ofpari passudebt unless all payments then due under the Notes and Guaranties (without giving effect to the deferral rights discussed above) have been made.

The distribution rate to be borne by the Preferred Securities and the interest rate on the Notes will not exceed the greater of (i) 300 basis points over U.S. Treasury securities having comparable maturities or (ii) a gross spread over U.S. Treasury securities that is consistent with similar securities issued by other companies having comparable maturities and credit quality.

Gulf will use the proceeds from the sale of the securities in connection with its ongoing construction program, to pay scheduled maturities and/or refundings of its securities, to repay short-term indebtedness to the extent outstanding and for other general corporate purposes.

Gulf represents that it will maintain its common equity as a percentage of capitalization (inclusive of short-term debt) at no less than thirty (30) percent. Gulf further represents that no guaranties or other securities may be issued in reliance upon the requested authorization, unless (i) the security to be issued, if rated, is rated investment grade; (ii) all outstanding securities of Gulf that are rated are rated investment grade; and (iii) all outstanding securities of Southern that are rated are rate investment grade. For purposes of this provision, a security will be deemed to be rated “investment grade” if it is rated investment grade by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization, as that term is used in paragraphs (c)(2)(vi)(E), (F) and (H) of rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Gulf requests that it, nevertheless, be permitted to issue a security that does not satisfy these conditions if the requirements of rule 52(a)(i) and rule 52(a)(iii) are met and the issue and sale of the security have been expressly authorized by the Florida Public Service Commission.5Gulf also requests the Commission to reserve jurisdiction over any guaranties or securities that do not satisfy these conditions.

5Gulf is a Maine corporation doing business in the State of Florida and does not do business in the State of Maine.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2notice is hereby given that on September 29, 2003, the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has filed this proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act3and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)4thereunder, which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.5The Commission ispublishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to extend its pilot program for the Liquidity Provider Fee and Rebate (“Program”) through December 31, 2003. The pilot was originally proposed in SR-CSE-2002-16,6and is set to expire on September 30, 2003.7The CSE proposes no substantive changes to the Program, other than extending its operation through December 31, 2003. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the CSE and at the Commission.

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

On October 22, 2002, CSE filed SR-CSE-2002-16,8which proposed to establish a pilot transaction credit for liquidity providers that is paid by liquidity takers on each intra-CSE execution9in Nasdaq securities. Under the pilot, the Exchange amended CSE Rule 11.10A(g)(1) by adding subparagraph (B) to charge the liquidity taker,i.e., the party executing against a previously displayed quote/order, $0.004 per share. The Exchange then passes on to the liquidity provider,i.e., the party providing the displayed quote/order, $0.003 per share with the Exchange retaining $0.001 per share. With this rule filing, CSE is extending the Program through December 31, 2003.

8See Original Pilot, supra note 6.

9An “intra-CSE execution” is any transaction that is executed on the Exchange for which the executing member on the buy-side of the transaction differs from the executing member on the sell-side of the transaction.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act10in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5)11in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, generally, in that it protects investors and the public interest. The CSE believes that the proposed rule change is also consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the Act,12in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CSE members by crediting members on a pro rata basis.

1015 U.S.C. 78f(b).

1115 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

1215 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

The CSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants orOthers

No written comments were solicited or received in connection with the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:

(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act13and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)14thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

1315 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

1417 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that such waivers are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, for they will allow the pilot to continue without interruption. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.15

15For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to file number SR-CSE-2003-13 and should be submitted by October 30, 2003.

For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.16

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held November 5-6, 2003, at the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be held in Room 930, beginning at 8 a.m. and concluding at 4:30 p.m. on both days. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries and soldiers' lots and plots and on the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding these activities.

On November 5, the Committee will receive updates on the National Cemetery Administration's National Shrine Commitment, organizational assessment, and other issues related to the administration and maintenance of national cemeteries. The Committee will travel to Alexandria National Cemetery for talks related to the National Shrine Commitment.

On November 6, the Committee will receive an update on the construction of new national cemeteries and meeting veterans' burial needs. The meeting will conclude with any unfinished business and recommendations for future programs, meeting sites, and agenda topics.

No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting is requested to contact Ms. Cynthia Riddle, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 273-5223. The Committee will accept written comments; however, the writers must identify themselves and state the organizations, associations, or person(s) they represent. Comments can be transmitted electronically to the Committee atCynthia.riddle@mail.va.govor mailed to National Cemetery Administration (40), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will meet on October 27-28, 2003 at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 630, Washington, DC. The meeting on October 27 will convene at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. The meeting on October 28 will convene at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m. Both meetings will be open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed research studies, research plans and research strategies relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.

On October 27, the Committee will hear research presentations on birth defects and family health and identifying possible molecular targets of neurotoxic exposures in Gulf War illnesses. The Committee will also receive an update on VA-sponsored Gulf War research activities. On October 28, the committee will receive an update on published research. The committee will hear presentations on the following topics: possible role of vaccines in Gulf War veterans' illnesses, monitoring health outcomes in Gulf War veterans at VA and overview of federal research funding for Gulf War illnesses and chemical defense. Time will be available for public comment on both days.

Members of the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Ms. Laura O'Shea, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs (008A1), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Ms. Laura O'Shea at (202) 273-5031.

Memorandum for the Secretary of StateConsistent with the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including section 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), I hereby determine it is necessary for the purposes of the FAA that the $25 million in FY 2003 International Organizations and Programs funds that were reserved to be allocated for the United Nations Population Fund be transferred to, and consolidated with, the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund, and such funds are hereby transferred and consolidated.You are hereby authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress and to arrange for its publication in theFederal Register.BTHE WHITE HOUSE,Washington, September 30, 2003.[FR Doc. 03-25782Filed 10-8-03; 8:45 am]Billing code 4710-10-P68196Thursday, October 9, 2003CORRECTIONS!!!Don!!!DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYBureau of Customs and Border Protection19 CFR Part 12[CBP Decision 03-28]RIN 1515-AD34Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Materials From CambodiaCorrection

In rule document 03-24085 beginning on page 55000 in the issue of Monday, September 22, 2003, make the following correction:

§12.104g[Corrected]

On page 55004, in §12.104g(a), in the table, under the heading “ T.D. No.”, “CBP Dec. 03-BC28” should read “CBP Dec. 03-28”.

The Department proposed to revise the forms used by labor organizations to file the annual financial report required by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). This document sets forth the Department's review of and response to comments on the proposal and the changes that will be made to the Form LM-2 used by the largest labor organizations to file the required report. The Department will require each labor organization that has annual receipts of $250,000 or more to file a Form LM-2 electronically and to itemize receipts and disbursements of $5,000 or more, as well as receipts not reported elsewhere from, or disbursements to, a single entity that total $5,000 or more in the reporting year, in specified categories. The Department has combined two proposed categories (“Contract Negotiation and Administration” and “Organizing”) into a single schedule entitled “Representational Activities,” added a category entitled “Union Administration,” combined the proposed categories for “Political Activities” and “Lobbying” into a single schedule, and eliminated the category entitled “Other Disbursements.” Reporting labor organizations will be permitted, however, to report sensitive information for some categories that might harm legitimate union or privacy interests with other non-itemized receipts and disbursements, provided the labor organization indicates that it has done so. Using this procedure, however, will constitute just cause for any union member to review the underlying data upon request. Moreover, under the statute (29 U.S.C. 436), the labor organization must maintain the records for inspection by the Department. The new Form LM-2 will have schedules for reporting information regarding delinquent accounts payable and receivable, but specific information need only be reported for accounts that total $5,000 or more during the reporting year. The revised Form LM-2 will require labor organizations to report investments that have a book value of over $5,000 and exceed 5% or more of the union's investments. A new schedule will require labor organizations to report the number of members by category, but will allow each labor organization to define the categories used for reporting. Reporting labor organizations must estimate the proportion of each officer's and employee's time spent in each of the functional categories on the Form LM-2 and report that percentage of gross salary in the relevant schedule.

Labor organizations that have $250,000 or more in annual receipts will be required to file a Form T-1 for any trust in which the labor organization is interested, if the trust has $250,000 or more in annual receipts and the labor organization contributed $10,000 or more to the trust during the reporting year, or that amount was contributed on the labor organization's behalf. Unions with less than $250,000 in annual receipts will not be subject to this requirement. No Form T-1 will be required if the trust files a report pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 527, or pursuant to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1023 (ERISA), or if the organization files publicly available reports with a Federal or state agency as a Political Action Committee (PAC). Finally, a labor organization may substitute an audit that meets the criteria set forth in the Instructions for the financial information otherwise reported on a Form T-1 for a qualifying trust.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This rule will be effective on January 1, 2004, but will apply only to annual financial reports filed by unions for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2004.

On December 27, 2002, the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (67 FR 79820) proposing revisions of the forms used by labor organizations to file the annual financial reports required by section 201(b) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431(b). As the notice explained, the proposed revisions were based upon the fact that the American workforce and labor organizations have changed dramatically over the last forty years and the fact that the form used by labor organizations to report financial information has not changed significantly in the same time period. The proposed revisions also reflected the Department's belief, based on the accumulated experience of investigators and other staff in the Employment Standards Administration's (ESA's) OLMS, that more detailed and transparent reporting of labor organizations' financial information would be more useful to union members, more effectively deter fraud, and enable OLMS investigators to more easily discover fraud when it occurs. Finally, the proposal noted the Department's view that, because of technological advances, these revisions will impose less burden on labor organizations than revisions proposed in previous years.

Before issuing this proposal, various Department officials met with many representatives of the regulated community, including union officials and their legal counsel, to hear their views on the need for reform and the likely impact of changes that might be made. The Department's proposal, developed with these discussions in mind, requested comments on numerous specific issues in order to base any revisions on a complete record reflecting the views of the parties affected and the Department's responses. In addition, the Department contracted with a professional provider of information technology services, SRA International (SRA), to assess the technical feasibility of electronically collecting and reporting the information that would be required by the proposed changes. The Department initially provided for a 60-day comment period, but later extended that period for an additional 30 days.

When the comment period closed, on March 27, 2003, ESA/OLMS had received over 35,000 comments. Most of the comments received were copies of approximately 110 different form letters signed by individuals who said they were members or officers of unions and commented in general terms. Although many of these form letters expressed opposition to the Department's proposal to revise the forms, many other form letters expressed support for the proposal. In addition, approximately 1,200 unique comments, including lengthy, substantive and specific comments, were received from union members, local, intermediate, national and international labor organizations, employers and trade organizations, public interest groups, accountants,accounting firms, academicians, and Members of Congress. Some commenters addressed their comments to specific limited issues, others—most notably, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)—commented on virtually all aspects of the proposal. All comments have been carefully reviewed and considered. The Department's analysis of and responses to the comments are set forth below (seeSections II, III, and IV).

In addition, this rule makes minor changes to the forms and the Instructions that did not directly result from any comments. Many of these changes reflect the differences between the proposed and final rule, requiring the addition of lines to the forms, the re-labeling of others, and the combination of schedules. Many of the minor changes to the Instructions also reflect these differences. These differences are discussed in detail below in the Department's analysis of the comments. Many of the changes in the Instructions, however, simply correspond to changes in the format of the form and the need to rework the Instructions so that they inform the filers and the public, whether they rely on the electronic or paper formats, about how to complete and use the forms. In analyzing the comments and preparing the final rule, some inadvertent omissions were discovered, as were some ambiguities in the text of the Instructions, requiring the redrafting of some of the Instructions and, in some instances, changes to the form. In reviewing the schedules for reporting disbursements to officers and employees, it became apparent that a filer would benefit from seeing the names of the schedules from which information was to be obtained, and therefore line I in each schedule was revised to include the names of the five schedules.

The Department's review revealed some inadvertent omissions from the proposed Form LM-2. For example, in Schedule 12, lines 7 and 8 were omitted. The final form includes these lines. Line 7 will provide space for “totals from continuation pages (if any),” and line 8 will be used to report the “total of lines 1-7.” In Item 30, “Schedule 8” was omitted from the “Form Schedule Number” column. This omission has been corrected. The language of the attestation has been changed slightly to ensure that it complies substantially with 28 U.S.C. 1746.

In several other places, additional lines were added in order to reflect changes in the Instructions, including the need for additional lines to reflect subtotals of itemized and aggregated amounts for some categories or the need to add amounts from other parts of the form. Several titles of categories were revised to better reflect the information to be reported. Thus, the title of Item 36, “Dues and Other Payments,” has been changed to “Dues and Agency Fees,” the title of Schedule 1 was changed to “Accounts Receivable Aging Schedule,” and the title of Schedule 8 was changed to “Accounts Payable Aging Schedule.” In Schedule 9, “Loans Payable,” the Instructions were revised to state that interest paid must be reported in Schedule 18, “General Overhead,” in place of the reference to the now obsolete “Other Disbursements Schedule.”

The text of the Instructions pertaining to some schedules and categories was revised where greater clarity was needed. Additional examples were included to assist filers in completing certain categories. For example, in Section X, a building corporation was added as an example of types of trusts, and new examples for “Other Receipts” were provided to better reflect the transactions to be reported on the schedule. Additional explanation for the “Detailed Summary Page” and the “Initial Itemization Page” was added. The “Continuation Itemization Page” was created for labor organizations that utilize the hardship exemption and do not file electronically. Some terms that might be unfamiliar to filers were explained, including terms such as “net,” “basis,” and “book value.” In Items 39 and 60, the following were added to illustrate items to be reported as supplies: union logo clothing, lapel pins, and bumper stickers.

Additional information about compliance assistance also was added. In the “How to File” section, filers are provided a website address for obtaining the filing softwarewww.olms.dol.gov;the reference in the proposed instructions to a CD-ROM accompanying the report package was deleted as obsolete. Updated information is provided in the “If You Need Assistance” section at the end of the instructions. In Item 18, “Changes in Constitution and Bylaws or Practices and Procedures,” the language was revised to indicate that if the form is filed electronically, the constitution and bylaws must be submitted as an electronic attachment. In the second paragraph of the general instructions for completing Schedules 14 through 22, the statement relating to the compatibility of the Department's software was revised to reflect that the software will be compatible with the most commonly used electronic recordkeeping systems. A sentence was also added to indicate that information about the software and the technical specifications can be found at the OLMS Web site.

II. Comments on the Proposal and Responses to the CommentsA. General Comments

Before discussing the many specific comments that the Department received, it should be noted that the Department also received many comments that simply expressed general support for, or opposition to, the proposal. Union members, employers, and public interest organizations filed numerous general comments in support of the Department's proposed reform. One union member asked, “Government is accountable to taxpayers and corporations are accountable to shareholders, shouldn't unions be accountable to dues-paying members?” The commenters included a former vice president of a local union who expressed “full support of the proposed anti-corruption initiative” and wrote, “We should all know how the money is being spent at every level.” Other union members suggested that the proposal was “long overdue.”

Some union members advocated more sweeping change. One union member commented, “We need protection from our supposed labor leaders.” Another commented, “Just please be sure the unions cannot get around these [proposed] requirements through creative accounting tricks.” A commenter who described himself as having been a union member for 33 years, wrote, “I do not believe that these new regulations go far enough to hold unions more accountable.”

Some comments from union members centered on their difficulties in obtaining financial information from their union under the current reporting scheme. A shop steward said that repeated requests for information to the union leadership had “gone unanswered” and that he “feel[s] it is time that unions be required to account for every penny of the dues they collect.” Numerous other commenters joined in describing futile, or largely futile, attempts made to obtain information about union finances from the union leadership. Some commenters indicated that such requests for information generate resentment or invite retaliation from union leaders. Another union member wrote, “You shouldn't have to beg or plead with your Business Manager/Agent to see financial reports for an organization you finance.”

Other commenters claimed to have witnessed questionable union expenditures, which increased disclosure would have revealed. Another comment asserted, “Significant money is spent on items which many would consider a waste of funds if only the members knew.” Others said that the greater detail in the proposed form “will make thefts harder to cover up.” Another member supported the initiative to “help prevent fraud and corruption,” as well as to permit “informed decisions about workplace issues.” A public interest organization commented that “the information provided by the AFL-CIO in the Form LM-2 is not sufficient to give the average union member an accurate picture of how the AFL-CIO spends much of the dues collected.” One commenter noted that requiring unions to estimate the amount of time spent by union officers and employees performing various duties will provide significant new information to union members. The commenter also stated that, together with reporting receipts and disbursements by functional categories, the proposed rule will provide information that will help ensure that union leadership is acting in the interests of its membership. Another public interest organization commented that more “detailed financial reporting is needed” to avoid “waste, fraud and corruption.” A 25-year union member stated, “It will be a great victory for [the union's] membership when the reform is passed.”

Many commenters opposed the proposed changes, expressing their beliefs that the proposed rule is: political payback designed to punish organized labor; designed to weaken the union movement; intended to hamper the ability of unions to service their members; designed to strain union budgets; intended to expand the requirements ofCommunication Workers of Americav.Beck,487 U.S. 735 (1988); and intended to secure additional information for employers and anti-union organizations rather than union members. Although a number of unions and their members submitted helpful comments on the substance of the rule, some of the general comments in opposition simply criticized the Administration and Department officials, and lacked specific recommendations on the substance of the proposal. They nevertheless expressed strongly held feelings in opposition to the proposed changes.

Acknowledging that there are strong views on both sides of the issue, the Department has carefully considered all of the comments and the arguments made for and against the proposed revision of the forms used by labor organizations to report annual financial information as required by the LMRDA.

B. The Secretary's Statutory Authority

Some of the commenters questioned the Department's authority to make the proposed changes, arguing that the Department is upsetting the delicate balance between labor and management that was recognized by Congress in the National Labor Relations Act. Some unions complained that the proposal would require that labor organizations disclose confidential trade secrets, such as organizing strategy and negotiating plans, which some courts have ruled are not discoverable by union members and would give adversaries a greater knowledge of the inner workings of the labor organizations with which they may deal in connection with collective bargaining or organizing activities. These commenters argue that the Department's proposal is inconsistent with the principle that governmental intrusion into the affairs of labor organizations should be limited because the Constitution protects the right of association, there purportedly is no evidence that union members want this information, and, they alleged, other voluntary organizations are not subjected to this level of disclosure.

The Department takes seriously the concerns expressed that the proposed rule would intrude too deeply in the internal affairs of labor organizations and provide unfair advantages to the adversaries and competitors of such organizations. Accordingly, the Department has made numerous changes, described below, to avoid these unintended and unwanted results. In the Department's view, however, none of these changes is necessitated by any lack of authority on the part of the Department to revise the reporting forms or the manner in which reports must be filed. On the contrary, the LMRDA gives the Secretary of Labor authority to make such changes, for the reasons outlined in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and in this rule. Section 201(b) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431(b), requires that:

Every labor organization shall file annually with the Secretary a financial report signed by its president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers containing the following informationin such detail as may be necessary accurately to disclose its financial condition and operations for its preceding fiscal year* * *

(Emphasis added.) In addition, section 208 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 438, states in part:

The Secretary shall have authority to issue, amend and rescind rules and regulations prescribing the form and publication of reports required to be filed under this title and such other reasonable rules and regulations (including rules prescribing reports concerning trusts in which a labor organization is interested) as he may find necessary to prevent the circumvention or evasion of such reporting requirements.

These provisions make it clear that the Secretary has discretion to determine the format in which the information required by the statute must be provided, as well as the detail in which the information must be reported.

The statutory language describing the information that labor organizations are required to report is broad. Each labor organization must include in its annual financial report:

(1) Assets and liabilities at the beginning and end of the fiscal year;

(2) receipts of any kind and the sources thereof;

(3) salary, allowances and other direct or indirect disbursements (including reimbursed expenses) to each officer and also to each employee who, during such fiscal year, received more than $10,000 in the aggregate from such labor organization and any other labor organization affiliated with it or with which it is affiliated, or which is affiliated with the same national or international labor organization;

(4) direct and indirect loans made to any officer, employee, or member, which aggregated more than $250 during the fiscal year, together with a statement of the purposes, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment;

(5) direct and indirect loans to any business enterprise, together with a statement of the purpose, security, if any, and arrangements for repayment; and

(6) other disbursements made by it including the purposes thereof; all in such categories as the Secretary may prescribe.

29 U.S.C. 431(b)(1)-(6). Comments that the Secretary lacks authority to require that receipts and disbursements be itemized or that disbursements be reported in categories are inconsistent with the plain language of the statute. In fact, the statute authorizes the Secretary to require labor organizations to report every receipt and disbursement, in any amount, and in any categories prescribed by the Secretary. The statute's requirement that labor organizations report “receipts” and “disbursements” does not, as some comments argue, call for only aggregated receipts and disbursements. Neither the fact that the Secretary has not heretofore exercised the full extentof her statutory authority nor the fact that forms previously required less detailed reporting diminishes the authority provided the Secretary by the LMRDA as enacted in 1959.

In the Department's view, this rule meets both the letter and the spirit of the LMRDA, both generally and with respect to its provisions specific to union reporting requirements. The rule promotes the two related overarching purposes of union reporting: to fully inform union members, on a yearly basis, about their union's “financial condition and operations,” 29 U.S.C. 431(b); and, by public disclosure of this information, to deter union officials and employees from abusing their stewardship duties and to allow members, the Department, and the public an opportunity to review a union's financial information as a check on the actions of its officials and employees.See United Statesv.Budzanoski,462 F.2d 443, 450 (3d Cir.),cert. denied,409 U.S. 949 (1972);Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, et al.v.Wirtz,346 F.2d 827, 831 (D.C. Cir. 1965). The Department's reforms also advance the LMRDA's declared purpose “that labor organizations, employers, and their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of their organizations.” 29 U.S.C. 401(a).

The AFL-CIO commented that the proposed rule attempts to dictate to unions what they should treat as their “most * * * important purposes” in structuring their budgets and accounts and is contrary to the LMRDA insofar as the statute reflects the theory that, “[g]iven certain minimum standards, ‘individual members are fully competent to regulate union affairs’ ” (quotingS. Rep. No. 85-1684, at 4-5 (1958)). In the view of the AFL-CIO, Congress deliberately established a two-step process, found in 29 U.S.C. 431, to inform members about their union's finances and operations. The process was established to protect unions from improper government intervention in their affairs and harassment from members that would divert them from their representational function. The first step requires the preparation of a financial report in such detail as needed to disclose the union's financial condition (29 U.S.C. 431(b)); the second step requires a union, upon a member's showing of just cause, to disclose additional information (29 U.S.C. 431(c)). In the AFL-CIO's view, the proposed rule collapses this two-part process and destroys protections for a union's confidentiality and trade secrets in violation of established protections.

In the Department's view, this argument is unpersuasive. The revised form calls for more detail than the previous form, but does not require disclosure of the underlying records necessary to verify the report.See29 U.S.C. 431(c). The fact that the Secretary has exercised her authority to determine that more detailed financial information should be reported on a Form LM-2 than previously does not limit a union's ability to maintain additional information, in any format it desires, including the physical evidence of financial transactions (such as cancelled checks, bills, or receipts), nor does it eliminate each union member's right to examine such information, enforceable in district court upon a showing of “just cause.” Congress conditioned a union member's right to examine records necessary to verify the union's annual financial report on a showing of just cause in order to relieve unions from the harassment of repeated requests for documents based simply on curiosity.See Kinslowv.American Postal Workers Union, Chicago Local,222 F.3d 269, 273 (7th Cir. 2000). This requirement, however, “simply entails a showing that the union member had some reasonable basis to question the accuracy of the LM-2 or the documents on which it was based, or that information in the LM-2 has inspired reasonable questions about the way union funds were handled.”Id.at 274;see also Mallickv.Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers,749 F.2d 771, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1984). No matter how much detail a union provides on its Form LM-2, members have a right to examine the actual documents or other evidence of recorded transactions to determine, for example, whether the union accurately recorded the information. Moreover, as explained more fully below, in Section III(B)(2), in response to comments from numerous unions that making certain information available to the public at large would be harmful to legitimate interests, the Department will permit labor organizations to report some receipts and disbursements as part of the aggregated total, without specificity, provided, with limited exceptions, it indicates on the Form LM-2 that it has done so. If a labor organization uses this option, only those of its members who satisfy the “just cause” standard and the Department will be entitled to review the specific information related to these disbursements. Far from eliminating the method Congress provided members to review their union's finances in more detail pursuant to section 201(c), 29 U.S.C. 431(c), that statutory tool is central to these reforms.

C. Comparison With Reporting Requirements for Corporations and Non-Profit Organizations

Several commenters, asserting that corporate scandals have surpassed any union misconduct in recent years, argued that corporations should first be made to file disclosure reports like those proposed by the Department before unions are asked to do so. Some union members argued that labor organizations are already subject to more stringent reporting requirements than corporations or other non-profit organizations. Many commenters felt that unions are like small businesses and should be provided the same protections from intrusive reporting requirements that, they assert, small businesses are provided by the Department and other regulatory agencies.

Other commenters noted that corporations and their executives are subject to significantly more burdensome reporting requirements than are unions. One commenter noted that labor organizations, unlike corporations, are not subject to various external controls and scrutiny by such entities as Wall Street investment analysts, portfolio managers, financial media, and millions of shareholders. Another commenter found the comparison between labor organizations and corporations irrelevant because unlike commercial entities, which are accountable based on their profit or loss, labor unions are accountable only in terms of the stewardship responsibilities of their officers. One commenter also noted that like corporate disclosure requirements, which have been amended periodically, union disclosure requirements should be changed in order to keep pace with the times. Another commenter estimated that the reporting and disclosure burdens on businesses are many times the burden on labor organizations.

The Department has concluded that, while there are important differences among corporations, public interest organizations, and labor organizations, increased transparency is as important for labor organizations as for other such organizations. Moreover, for the reasons set forth below, the Department is not persuaded that the requirements imposed by this rule are more restrictive than those that apply to other entities. If anything, these requirements are less intrusive, less burdensome, and require less disclosure than reporting requirements governing other entities.

First, no comparison should be drawn between union reporting requirements and requirements imposed on aprivately held enterprise where the operator of the business is also the source of much of the venture's financing. Legally mandated financial disclosure regimes for both unions and publicly held corporations are designed primarily to address a fundamental problem common to both institutions: that managerial control of an entity lies beyond the direct control of the people who fund the entity.See generallyHenn Alexander,Hornbook on Laws of Corporations § 186 et seq.(1983). Corporate and union financial disclosure regimes are intended to reduce the informational advantages agents have over principals and permit principals to monitor and assess the performance of agents.SeeFletcher,Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations §§ 2213 et seq., 6842-43 (perm. ed.), available on Westlaw at Fletcher-CYC. Adequate transparency encourages union officers and corporate directors (agents) who are elected by union members and corporate shareholders (principals) to conduct the business of their organizations in the best interests of the people who provide the operating funds. Agents failing to do so can be removed through the mechanisms of corporate and union democracy.See Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 351 et seq.

In a privately held enterprise, where the operator of the business is also the source of the venture's financing, there is no principal to perform the monitoring and no agent to be monitored.See generally Laws of Corporations § 257 et seq.; see alsoSoderquist,Understanding the Securities Laws§ 2:2.2 (2001), available on Westlaw at PLIREF-SECLAW. While privately held companies are required to make certain financial disclosures related to franchise taxes, Small Business Administration loans, Federal Communications Commission licenses and other regulatory schemes, these disclosures are designed to assess taxes, fees, or eligibility for government-provided benefits, not to ensure transparency of managerial performance.See generally Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 6666 et seq.The only scenario in which it is instructive to compare the financial disclosure regime of a privately held company to a union is when a privately held firm creates a principal/agent relationship by accepting funding through the venture capital markets. This scenario, however, also offers no basis for comparison with the relationship between a union and its members because financial institutions and other entities that provide such funding can condition it on the disclosure of any financial information concerning the company seeking funding, can demand that the information be provided in any level of detail desired, and can use contractual remedies to enforce the condition. Union members, by contrast, are entitled only to the report that their union files with the Department of Labor pursuant to the LMRDA and, upon a showing of just cause, “to examine any books, records, and accounts necessary to verify such report.” 29 U.S.C. 431(b), (c).

Accordingly, the only reporting requirements applied to businesses that are relevant for comparison with the annual union financial report are those applied to publicly-traded companies. Generally speaking, the regulatory regime governing financial reporting by large and small public companies is much more extensive than the system that exists for labor organizations.See generallyHazen,Law of Securities Regulation§§ 3.2-3.7, 9.4 (2002), available on Westlaw at LAWSECREG;Understanding the Securities Laws§ 2:2.2. Furthermore, the reporting requirements under the securities laws have been substantially increased since the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.See generally68 FR 36636-01et seq.(June 18, 2003) (amending various disclosure rules established by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including 17 CFR 240.13a-14, 240.13a-15, 240.15d-14, 240.15d-15, 249.220f). Labor organizations must file only one form a year, need not disclose qualitative information, and are not required to conduct certified audits of their financial statements.See29 U.S.C. 431. The financial reporting scheme for public companies, as amended by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, requires the disclosure of both quantitative and qualitative information and imposes strict audits and significant internal controls on public companies, their officers, directors, auditors, accountants and attorneys.See generally17 CFR Parts 210-211, 228-32, 239, 241, 249 (Subparts A-D) (2003) (particularly provisions amended by 68 FR 4820 (Jan. 30, 2003), 68 FR 5110 (Jan. 31, 2003), 68 FR 15354-02 (Mar. 31, 2003), 68 FR 36636-01 (June 18, 2003).See alsoBloomenthal,Sarbanes-Oxley Act in Perspective§ 10 (2002), available on Westlaw at SEC-SOAP S 10. Small and large public companies are required to file annual and quarterly reports.See17 CFR 240.13a-1et seq.; Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 6842; Law of Securities Regulation§ 9.6[4]. All public companies must certify audits for the accuracy of information in their annual and quarterly reports. See 68 FR 36636et seq.(discussed above); Bloomenthal Wolff,Securities and Federal Corporate Law§ 7:35.13 (2002). A substantial amount of quantitative financial information is contained in both annual and quarterly reports. These reports must disclose “material” financial information.See Law of Securities Regulation§§ 3.2-3.7, 9.4;Understanding the Securities Laws§ 12-8;Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations§ 6862. In its Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2 (SFAC No. 2), the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) stated the essence of the concept of materiality as follows:

The omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item.

Id.at ¶ 132.Seediscussion below in Section (II)(D). Due to the myriad factors involved in determining whether financial information meets this rather vague threshold, professional assistance is required.See id.at ¶¶ 123-132. As noted above, the SEC generally requires public companies to disclose in their annual reports “material” quantitative information on balance sheets or income statements related to numerous types of assets, accounts, and expenditures.See Law of Securities Regulation§§ 3.2-3.7, 9.4. Public companies must disclose “material” financial data on executive compensation, including: annual salary; bonuses; other annual compensation; restricted stock; and options.Id.They must also provide “material” quantitative information on computation of per share earnings and market risk.Id.The Sarbanes-Oxley Act added several additional categories of material, quantitative data that public companies must disclose, including disclosing in each annual and quarterly report all “material” off-balance sheet transactions, arrangements and obligations (including contingent obligations).SeeTitle III, 116 Stat. 775, and Title IV, 116 Stat. 785.

Since its inception, the LM-2 reporting system has eschewed the use of a vague standard based on individualized judgments regarding materiality for determining what quantitative data a union must report, and has instead required specific information regarding all assets, liabilities and transactions. The Department has determined that it willcontinue with this approach. This avoids forcing labor organizations to incur the expenses and burdens associated with making determinations about whether given items are “material.” Even those commenters that suggested that the Department should consider implementing a materiality standard recognized that such a standard would introduce an element of judgment in the reporting process with potential for complicating the investigative process. Although a commenter argued that such tradeoffs are similar to those necessitated by dollar thresholds for reporting, the Department believes that a dollar threshold is easier for reporting unions to apply, for the Department to enforce, and for union members to understand.

In addition to the detailed quantitative data, the annual and quarterly reports of large and small public companies must also disclose “material” qualitative data.See Law of Securities Regulation§§ 3.4, 3.6, 9.4. This includes narrative descriptions of “material” aspects of a company's businesses and principal products.Id.Public companies must also disclose information on relationships the company has that may have a “material” effect on current or future financial condition, liquidity, capital expenditures, capital resources, or significant components of revenues or expenses of the company.Id.This includes an explanation of a company's dependence on customers whose loss would materially affect the company's financial health and an explanation of material changes in the mode of conducting business.Id.“Material” legal proceedings must be reported, including full identification of parties and the circumstances and basis of the proceedings.Id.“Material” property holdings must also be identified and described, including their use and any encumbrances upon them.Id.

Public companies are also required to make forward-looking statements about the future financial performance of the company, including analysis of all “material” risks facing the company.Id.Public companies must also report “material” information about market risk, such as potential loss in future earnings of cash flow based on changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices and other relevant market factors.Id.A detailed explanation of internal controls and procedures must also be provided.Id; see also68 FR 36636-01. The Department has decided not to require labor organizations to provide their members with any qualitative information on its finances, much less the detailed qualitative analysis public companies are required to disclose.

Following the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“the Board”) oversee the audits of public companies; establish accounting and audit report standards and rules for public companies; and certify, investigate, inspect, and enforce compliance with standards applicable to professionals involved in the preparation of audits and financial reports by public companies.SeeTitle I, 116 Stat. 750. Annual audits and financial reporting by public companies must be under the control of an audit committee composed exclusively of independent directors.SeeTitle II, § 202, 116 Stat. 772-73; Title III, 116 Stat. 775-77. These independent committees must include at least one “financial expert” and are directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the certified firms that do private audits of public companies.SeeTitle IV, § 408, 116 Stat. 790-91. To effectuate the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, these audit committees must also establish procedures for the receipt, retention and review of anonymous complaints by a public company's employees regarding accounting practices, internal financial controls, and auditing matters.SeeTitle III, §§ 301-04, 116 Stat. 775-78. Public companies must give their audit committees the financial resources necessary to hire any independent advisors or attorneys required to carry out these responsibilities.Id.

The LMRDA does not require labor unions to perform any audits. It does not mandate that unions use governance structures that ensure independent oversight of financial operations, such as independent audit committees. Union members have no whistleblower rights. The Department does not enforce any independent system of certification, quality control, ethics, independence standards or other regulation of firms that some unions use to prepare annual Form LM-2 reports. There are also no restrictions on other services that a firm preparing Form LM-2 reports may perform for a labor organization. In contrast to the reviews the SEC performs on public companies not less than once every three years (see15 U.S.C. 7266(c)), labor unions currently can expect, on average, to be audited by the Department of Labor approximately once every 150 years. Ten of the 25 largest unions have never been audited because of OLMS's limited resources.

Several commenters suggested that unions be required to file annual independent audits. Many unions, one individual commented, have constitutional provisions that already require an audit by an outside accounting firm. While some commenters argued that requiring unions to obtain annual audits is within the Department's statutory authority, no provision of the LMRDA vests the Secretary of Labor with any express authority to require unions to obtain audits and the Department has chosen not to attempt to impose such a requirement, to avoid imposing on the labor organizations that are not currently obtaining private audits any need to hire financial experts to conduct a qualitative analysis of the union's records. Simply permitting those unions that currently obtain annual audits to file whatever audit is currently performed is not likely to ensure that all of the statutorily-required information is reported, nor would it ensure that the information is provided in a standard format that is both readily understandable and accessible to union members. Information that may be meaningful to trained financial analysts or auditors may not be useful to many union members.

Accordingly, the statutory requirements, and the Secretary's longstanding implementation of those requirements, have been framed in terms of assets, liabilities, disbursements and receipts, rather than more general financial terms. The Department has concluded that continuing to require unions to report holdings and transactions, rather than third-party descriptions of their financial conditions, will provide understandable information to members, permit members to compare reports of different years, permit members to compare reports with those of other unions, and enhance the detection and deterrence of fraud.

Alternatively, commenters suggested, the Department should annually conduct a compliance audit of each union. The Department's responsibility for insuring the financial integrity of unions involves both requiring adequate reporting and conducting compliance audits. The statute does not contemplate the two components as mutually exclusive; in fact, the Department intends to increase the number of compliance audits, as resources permit, at the same time it implements the revised Form LM-2. Additional compliance audits would not, however, constitute a satisfactory alternative to the reforms embodied in the revised Form LM-2, as compliance audits would address the accuracy of the information provided in the existingForm LM-2, but would not improve the transparency of labor organizations' finances, increase the information available to members, or make the data disclosed in reports more understandable and accessible.

As one commenter noted, it is even more difficult to deter financial mismanagement by labor organization officials than it is in a corporate setting because of the absence of natural market influences and because there are fewer regularly occurring checks on the financial performance of unions. The same commenter noted that the additional disclosure as a result of the proposed changes would make it more difficult, and more expensive, to hide fraud. Recognizing that achieving this goal will also make it more expensive for unions to report, and that disclosure alone will reduce but not entirely overcome fraud, the Department has attempted to achieve a balance in this rule between the benefits and burdens of more detailed disclosure, and intends to follow promulgation of the rule both with more effective enforcement, using the additional information disclosed to uncover fraud when it occurs, and with more compliance assistance to respond to questions and concerns.

The Department is also not persuaded by the comments that suggest that the reporting requirements for labor organizations should be comparable to those that govern non-profit organizations. The LMRDA was enacted in the aftermath of a congressional investigation in the 1950's that found corruption in union leadership and a disregard for the rights of the rank-and-file.See Wirtzv.Hotel, Motel Club Emp. Union, Local 6,391 U.S. 492, 497-98 (1968). The over-riding purpose of the reporting provisions of the LMRDA is to provide union members with “all the vital information necessary for them to take effective action in regulating affairs of their organization.”SeeS. Rep. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Session, p.9, 1959 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2318, 2325 (1959). The Senate Labor Committee declared: “A union treasury should not be managed as the private property of union officers, however well intentioned, but as a fund governed by fiduciary standards appropriate to this type of organization. The members who are the real owners of the money and property of the organization are entitled to a full accounting of all transactions involving their property.”SeeS. Rep. 187 at p. 8, 1959 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2324. In light of these congressional directives, the Department is not persuaded as a general matter that a comparison between labor organizations and ordinary non-profit organizations is apt in the context of determining reporting standards. Nevertheless, although other reporting standards will not be treated as benchmarks or models, the Department has considered the specific comments of labor organizations and others in assessing the appropriateness of each proposed change to the reporting forms, as discussed in the succeeding sections.

D. Application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

Some commenters argued that the changes proposed by the Department depart from the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) promulgated by the FASB and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In particular, this position was advanced by a professor of accountancy whose comments were made on behalf of, and attached to the comment of, the AFL-CIO. This commenter said that many of the terms used and information required by the Department's proposal are inconsistent with various interpretations of GAAP. These assertions fail to recognize, however, that not all GAAP standards are consistent with the disclosure requirement of the LMRDA. 29 U.S.C. 431(b). Although the Department has considered the GAAP standards, and has accepted them in principle where they further the purposes of the LMRDA, the Department will not adopt GAAP standards when they are not consistent with these purposes. For example, as many commenters noted, the current Form LM-2 mandates reporting on a cash accounting basis, which is inconsistent with GAAP, but some cash accounting procedures are made necessary by the statute's requirement that the union disclose “receipts” and “disbursements.”See29 U.S.C. 431(b). Further, Form LM-2 is a special-purpose financial report prepared for compliance with the LMRDA. Special financial reports to government regulatory bodies are generally prepared in conformity with Other Comprehensive Basis Of Accounting (OCBOA).

This commenter also argued that the Department's proposal calls for the presentation of disaggregated information, which is contrary to GAAP and confusing for the user of the reported information. Although GAAP precepts do not control the inquiry, the revised Form LM-2, like the current Form LM-2, includes Statements A and B, which provide aggregated totals of financial information. Form LM-2 users do not have to rely solely on the itemized information contained in the schedules to obtain an overall understanding of the reporting labor organization's financial performance. The Department proposed requiring labor organizations to provide certain itemized information in addition to the aggregated totals in order to provide users of the Form LM-2 with additional financial information on specific financial issues. In fact, the FASB recognizes the appropriate inclusion of disaggregated information in financial reporting:

Disaggregated information that permits users of financial information to relate components of revenues to components of expenses also is often preferable to information provided by their aggregated amounts.

Financial Accounting Standard 117 (FAS 117), ¶ 118.

Several commenters asserted that the individual items reported on the Form LM-2 supporting schedules in and of themselves are not material financial information that will be relevant to the user. The FASB states that materiality of information is not measured solely on its magnitude. SFAC No. 2. “Materiality is a pervasive concept that relates to the qualitative characteristics, especially relevance and reliability.”Id.The Supreme Court, in deciding whether an omitted fact was material, described a general standard of materiality as:

A substantial likelihood that, under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the deliberations of the reasonable shareholder. Put another way, there must be a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the “total mix” of information made available.

TSC Industries Inc.v.Northway Inc.,426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976). The FASB agrees that the “usefulness of information must be evaluated in relation to the purposes to be served, and the objectives of financial reporting are focused on the use of accounting information in decision making.”Id.The Department has concluded, based on the experience of its investigators and the comments received from many union members, that the information that will be reported as a result of this revision of the Form LM-2, in fact, will have the capacity to make a difference in the ability of union members to make decisions regarding workplace and union governance issues. As indicated in Section III(B)(3), (4), the proper threshold for when a union must itemize and separately report a receipt or expenditure is subject to competing arguments. Setting the threshold lower (or eliminating it entirely) increases the number of receipts and expendituresthat must be reported, which correspondingly increases the information available for inspection. The availability of this information makes concealment of fraud more difficult, and allows members to evaluate the wisdom of the union's financial transactions. The threshold is significant: union members ordinarily protect their rights by reviewing these reports, unlike investors in public corporations and other individuals protected by the audit, oversight, and whistleblower provisions discussed in Section II(C). While a strong argument could be made that all expenditures are thus significant and should be itemized, a lower threshold would increase the accounting burden. The $5,000 threshold adopted strikes a balance between the opposing viewpoints. Thus, while the revised form neither permits nor necessitates individual assessments of the materiality of information about particular transactions, it requires the disclosure of information that is significant to union members.

Commenters also argued that proposed Form LM-2 violates GAAP because the costs of reporting the information exceed the benefits to users of the information. While the costs of the revised Form LM-2 are addressed in more detail in the Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction Act Analyses,seeSection V, the Department has determined that these costs are outweighed by benefits. FASB and other government regulatory bodies have discovered that the total benefits derived from shared information are nearly impossible to quantify. Information is different from other commodities because the benefits from information can extend beyond the immediate users. The revised Form LM-2 directly benefits union members because increased disclosure permits members to make better decisions about union governance and helps deter and detect fraud. The public also benefits from the deterrence of fraud, due to the costs fraud imposes on, for example, the criminal justice system, and from the promotion of ethical conduct in the administration of labor organization affairs, which increases the stability of labor organizations, and thus promotes the flow of commerce.See29 U.S.C. 401 (“Declaration of Findings, Purposes, and Policy”). The information required on the revised Form LM-2 thus benefits a wide variety of users, which is consistent with SFAC No. 2, ¶ 143.

Commenters noted several issues related to the application of FAS 117, Financial Statements of Not-For-Profit Organizations, to labor organization financial reporting. The FASB has opined regarding the appropriate scope of financial statements for not-for-profit organizations:

A complete set of financial statements of a not-for-profit organization shall include a statement of financial position as of the end of the reporting period, a statement of activities and a statement of cash flows for the reporting period, and accompanying notes to financial statements. FAS 117, ¶ 6.

FAS 117, however, applies only broad, general standards for reporting information in not-for-profit organization financial statements (FAS 117, ¶ 48), and the FASB recognizes that general purpose financial statements may not fulfill the special-purpose needs of regulatory requirements like those imposed by the LMRDA (FAS 117, ¶ 45). Even not-for-profit organizations subject to FAS 17 are required to report expenses by functional categories and to allocate costs among significant programs as applicable (seeFAS 117, ¶ ¶ 26-28) because of differences in indicators of performance as compared to for-profit business organizations (FAS 117, ¶ 61).

Comments on the Department's proposal indicate some confusion regarding the question whether revisions to Form LM-2 will require labor organizations to maintain their financial records using a cash basis or accrual method. Some unions and individuals have read the proposed rules to require unions to maintain their financial records system on an accrual basis. In this regard, some of the commenters noted that Schedule 1 of the proposed Form LM-2 requires reporting of receivables, a concept associated with accrual accounting. Some of the commenters also expressed their view that the majority of unions use the cash method of accounting and that it would be a substantial burden for them to make the conversion to the accrual method. Some of the commenters also noted that cash basis reporting comports with IRS requirements.

A local union explained that its accounting system uses the cash basis method. It noted that the proposed Schedule 1 (Accounts Receivable) and Schedule 8 (Accounts Payable) call for information maintained by systems set up on the accrual method of accounting. The local explained that this information is not readily available from cash basis systems, noting that commercial accounting systems track income and expenses, not receipts and disbursements. The local expressed its concern that it would be able to provide the accounts receivable and accounts payable information only by undertaking manual searches through voluminous records. It also noted a specific concern regarding the reporting of membership information, noting that its system to track membership is not integrated with its general ledger, with the result that it has no general ledger account set up to capture written off or uncollected dues income. Similarly, one labor organization noted concerns with regard to reporting accounts receivable and accounts payable (insofar as they require “aging” information). The commenter explained that this change would require it to spend considerable additional time to properly complete a Form LM-2. It explained that many local unions have members' dues sent to third parties or their particular international and that the locals' portion of the dues is only later remitted to the locals. One commenter stated that the cash basis method better effectuates the LMRDA's focus on receipts and disbursements.

Some commenters, however, read the proposed rules as continuing the cash basis requirement. In their comments, they requested that the Department, as part of the final rule, allow unions the option to utilize the accrual method of accounting. In support of this approach, they noted that accrual accounting is required by GAAP, reflecting, in their view, the belief that accrual accounting provides a more effective gauge of an organization's financial condition. In this regard, one commenter noted that the Department itself once recognized, when it proposed revisions to the Form LM-2 in 1992 (later withdrawn in part), that “accrual accounting generally provides a more accurate indication of an organization's financial condition and operations.” 57 FR 49282 (Oct. 30, 1992). Other commenters noted that the current cash basis requirement forces them to convert information in their accrual-based system for the sole purpose of submitting a Form LM-2, an expensive and time-consuming undertaking. One labor organization noted that its accounting personnel last year spent nearly half of the 1,200 hours it spent in preparing the Form LM-2 in converting information from its accrual-based system to a cash basis mode. Several commenters also noted that the IRS accepts reports using the accrual method of accounting.

An international labor organization, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), explained that it uses an accrual system to collect detailed information for its payroll, employee expense reports, member accounts receivable, and flight pay loss. ALPA noted that the current requirement that unions employ the cash method in preparing a Form LM-2 requires time-consuming conversionof ALPA's financial information, preventing it from ever meeting the March 31 deadline imposed by the LMRDA. Another international, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), stated that it maintains its books on an accrual basis for two reasons: first, it enables the organization to match revenue and expenses to the proper time period; and second, it enables the organization to comply with accounting rules and to receive an “unqualified” opinion from an independent auditor as to the organization's financial health.

In the Department's 1992 rulemaking, the Department specifically proposed that unions would be required to utilize the accrual accounting method. In response to the comments submitted, however, the 1992 final rule allowed unions the option to utilize either the cash or accrual method of accounting in reporting their finances. This option was rescinded in December 1993. This action was taken in response to comments that only relatively few of the larger unions used the accrual method and to correct the mistaken perception held by some unions that the Department's rule, in practice, was encouraging unions to utilize accrual accounting, a departure from the cash basis method that had been prescribed for reports in the past and the method used by the vast majority of unions. One union commenter on the current rule, however, asserted that the option concept was well thought-out because it recognized that although some unions used the accrual method of accounting, imposing this method on many smaller unions would present a real hardship to these unions because they rely on volunteers, not accountants, to prepare the Form LM-2. As discussed immediately below, this option is indeed available to unions, which may choose to track their finances on a cash basis, accrual basis or some other method of accounting.

Since the 1992 rule was rescinded, the Form LM-2 has, in fact, required that receipts and disbursements be reported on a cash basis, but has also required the reporting of certain information more typically maintained in an accrual-based system (e.g., Schedule 1 “ Loans Receivable, Schedule 8 “ Loans Payable, Accounts Payable, Mortgages Payable). Thus, requiring a combination of both types of information in one form, which might be characterized as modified cash basis accounting, represents no change from the existing Form LM-2 and was not identified as a change in the NPRM. The statement in the Instructions to the existing Form LM-2 that the form “must be prepared using the cash method of accounting,” was dropped, however, as it was not wholly accurate and could be misleading.

As explained in greater detail below, the Department has not proposed to require unions to establish a particular method to account for, and manage, their finances. Unions, for various reasons, may choose to track their finances on a cash basis, accrual basis, a hybrid of the two, or some other method of accounting. As noted by some commenters, the Form LM-2 reporting format requires unions to utilize some elements of both cash basis and accrual accounting. To a large extent, however, that format is driven by the fact that the statute itself requires both types of information. For example, the statement of “receipts and disbursements” required by the LMRDA is basically an accounting of the inflow and outflow of an organization's cash during the fiscal period. Consequently, a “profit and loss” statement prepared on the accrual basis is unacceptable as compliance with the Act since it reflects the income and expenses of an organization in the fiscal period and not the disposition of its cash.See29 U.S.C. 431(b).

In contrast, the statement of “assets and liabilities” required by the LMRDA is essentially an accrual type of statement and provides for reporting all receivables, payables, accruals and deferred items. Consequently, it should be unnecessary for an organization that maintains its records on the accrual system of accounting to change its procedures in order to prepare the statement of assets and liabilities. Preparation of a “cash receipts and disbursement” statement when the accrual method of accounting is used normally requires only an analysis of the organization's cash receipts and disbursements records in order to properly reclassify the necessary cash transactions to conform to the types of accounting classifications represented by like items on the prescribed forms. More importantly, the necessary modifications to either a cash based or accrual based system that may be necessary to comply with the format of the revised Form LM-2 are no different than modifications that labor organizations currently perform to file the existing Form LM-2.

The Department believes it would be inappropriate to dictate the particular system by which a union keeps track of its finances. While some unions may find it easier to use the accrual method of accounting and convert information to complete Form LM-2 items reporting the inflow and outflow of funds, the reporting goals can be achieved without directing all unions to use accrual accounting as the foundation of their financial management systems. Such a mandate is unnecessary and has been rejected in light of the comments that most unions maintain their books on the cash basis. Nor is the Department persuaded that accrual accounting should be mandated because it accords with GAAP. As discussed above, GAAP practices are neither binding nor necessarily appropriate for all aspects of financial reporting, particularly insofar as the operations of not-for-profit entities are concerned. The Department's concern is in ensuring the disclosure of information that satisfies the statutory requirements of the LMRDA in a manner best suited to meet the purposes of the statute, which can be accomplished without requiring a labor organization to use an accounting method that may not be best suited to its overall needs.

E. Additional Reforms Considered

Several commenters suggested that the Department should undertake other reforms, in addition to those proposed. While some comments expressed general support for wide dissemination of information filed with the Department of Labor on the labor organization annual financial reports, others thought that more specific dissemination requirements should be imposed. One commenter suggested that unions be required to post their most recent labor organization annual financial report on union bulletin boards in union halls and on employer bulletin boards reserved for union use in employer workplaces, while another suggested that labor organizations should make their annual financial reports available at their membership meetings. One comment suggested that information reported on the labor organization annual financial reports should be sent by unions to their members by mail or included in newsletters, as well as be made available on the Internet. Finally, one comment urged the Department to implement the provisions of section 105 of the LMRDA, requiring “[e]very labor organization [to] inform its members concerning the provisions of this Act.”See29 U.S.C. 415.

Section 205 of the LMRDA provides that the reports filed with the Department under Title II of the Act “shall be public information” and permits the Secretary of Labor to publish any information obtained.See29 U.S.C. 435. Section 208 gives the Secretary of Labor authority to issue rules and regulations prescribing theform and publication of reports required to be filed under Title II.See29 U.S.C. 438. Neither sections 205 and 208 nor any other provision of the Act expressly vest the Secretary of Labor with any authority to require labor organizations to disseminate information filed with the Department of Labor on labor organization annual financial reports at membership meetings, on labor organization websites, in labor organization newsletters or otherwise by mail to the members, or on union or employer bulletin boards. Neither the terms of section 105, nor of any other provision of the LMRDA, vest the Secretary of Labor with any express authority to enforce section 105.See29 U.S.C. 415.

The Department, however, has developed and implemented, with direction from Congress to do so, an extensive system for making available on the Internet the labor organization annual financial reports filed with the Department for the years 2000 and thereafter, as well as reports filed under section 203 of the LMRDA by labor relations consultants who engage in persuader activity and the employers who enter into agreements for such services.See29 U.S.C. 433. Using this system, any member of a labor organization or the general public with Internet access can review all such reports (athttp://union-reports.dol.gov) except those for the approximately 600 very small labor organizations whose national organizations file summary reports on their behalf pursuant to 29 CFR 403.4(b) because those small unions had no assets, liabilities, receipts, or disbursements during the reporting period.

III. Responses to Comments on Proposed Changes to Form LM-2A. Which Labor Organizations Must File a Form LM-21. The Filing Threshold

Since 1994, only labor organizations with $200,000 or more in annual receipts have been required to file a Form LM-2; smaller unions are permitted to use the simpler Forms LM-3 or LM-4. Although the Department considered raising the threshold for filing a Form LM-2 in its 2002 NPRM, thus reducing the number of labor organizations affected by most of the changes proposed, it did not propose an increase. The Department did solicit comments, however, on the appropriate level of annual receipts to trigger a Form LM-2 obligation. Some commenters expressed the view that the current threshold is too high and some argued that all unions should be required to file the expanded form, without regard to the amount of their annual receipts. Other commenters argued that the current threshold is too low and should be raised.

Shortly after the LMRDA was enacted in 1959, the threshold for filing the more detailed Form LM-2 was set by the Secretary at $20,000. The threshold was raised by the Secretary in 1962 to $30,000 and again in 1981 to $100,000. If any of these levels were now adjusted for inflation, the amount would be less than the current threshold of $200,000. Nevertheless, the Department has decided to raise the threshold to $250,000, an amount that approximates an inflation adjustment of the current threshold. Although the overwhelming majority (79%) of all reporting labor organizations are currently exempt from filing Form LM-2, changing the threshold to $250,000 will reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden for approximately 500 labor organizations. The Department will continue its past practice of periodically assessing the appropriateness of the filing threshold to ensure that it is relevant in terms of the current economy.

A number of labor organizations commented that the Department should permit unions to “pass through” funds received during the reporting period like per capita fees collected by local unions for transmission to a national or international labor organization and/or to use net dollar figures in order to avoid meeting the filing threshold. This concern should be alleviated somewhat by increasing the filing threshold to $250,000 but, more importantly, the Department does not agree that the concern is valid. Labor organizations should be accountable for all funds received and in their custody or control during the reporting period. Members who pay dues and per capita fees to their locals have a right to know what action their local took with respect to those funds. Similarly, members have a right to know how much money came into their union during the year, not just the net amount left at year's end.

Several commenters, including the AFL-CIO, cited the situation where a small labor organization with a history of filing either Form LM-3 or LM-4,i.e., one with annual receipts below $200,000, by virtue of an unusual event during the year had receipts boosted to in excess of $200,000. For example, a small union with consistent annual receipts of $50,000 sells a surplus piece of real estate for $200,000, resulting in annual receipts for that year of $250,000. Under current practice, the union would be required to file Form LM-2, and under the new rule it would also meet the Form LM-2 filing level.

In this example, by virtue of a one-time-only event, annual receipts would be quintupled. This union would likely not keep records conducive to providing the kind of details required by Form LM-2—and particularly the details and new schedules envisioned in the revised Form LM-2. In addition, labor organizations with such small annual receipts would be less likely to have electronic recordkeeping than their larger counterparts.

In this situation, if a labor organization lacks the capability of filing electronically, it could invoke the continuing hardship exemption, and thereby be excused from filing electronically for that year. The Department has concluded that providing any other relief is unnecessary and could undermine the purpose of these reforms in situations where transparency and full disclosure are most important. First, union members are likely to be especially interested in how “windfall” funds are handled. Second, if a union's annual receipts meet the filing threshold only because of a one-time event, the union is unlikely to have many other transactions within the reporting period and fewer subject to the disclosure thresholds of the final rule. The union therefore will not face substantial burdens in collecting the information necessary to file a Form LM-2, even though it has not been required to keep track of this information in the past. There is no sound reason to permit a union that has $250,000 in annual receipts to avoid the reporting obligation imposed on all other unions with similar receipts simply because the union has not had similar receipts in other years.

2. Intermediate Unions Without Private Employee Members

Three labor organizations—the National Education Association (NEA), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the AFL-CIO—and one individual union member submitted comments on the Department's proposal to adopt the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit inChaov.Bremerton Metal Trades Council,AFL-CIO,294 F.3d 1114 (2002), interpreting section 3(j) of the LMRDA. In that case, the court of appeals ruled that an intermediate labor organization that has no dealings itself with private employers and no members who are employed in the private sector may nevertheless be a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofsection 3(j) of the LMRDA if the intermediate body is “subordinate to a national or international labor organization which includes a labor organization engaged in commerce.” The Department proposed to follow this holding by adding language to the instructions for Forms LM-2, LM-3, and LM-4 clarifying that any “conference, general committee, joint or system board, or joint council” that is subordinate to a national or international labor organization will be required to file an annual financial report if the national or international labor organization is a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of section 3(j) of the LMRDA.

The three union commenters objected to the application of the LMRDA to wholly public sector intermediate bodies pursuant toBremertonas contrary to the statutory language, established case law, and Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR 451.3(a)(4). Additionally, the NEA and AFT opposed the extension of the LMRDA to wholly public sector bodies through the regulatory process and commented that such an extension should require Congressional action. They further commented that the decision inBremertondoes not bring wholly public sector intermediate bodies within LMRDA coverage, and any reference toBremertonshould, therefore, be taken out of the new rules where such reference is used to attempt coverage of wholly public sector organizations.

The expanded language in the instructions merely incorporates and restates the language of section 3(j) of the statute. The reference to theBremertondecision clarifies that the Department intends to interpret this language in a manner consistent with that decision.Bremertonis the most recent court decision interpreting section 3(j). The Department recognizes that the interpretation of section 3(j) set forth inBremertonrepresents a departure from previous court decisions and the Department's prior administration of the Act. However, the Department has concluded that theBremertoncourt's interpretation is the correct reading of the statutory language. Further, neither the Department nor the court has added statutory language or otherwise encroached on Congressional prerogatives here. The court, pursuant to its constitutional authority, interpreted terms contained in the statute, and the Department, operating within its authority to administer the statute, has stated its intention to adopt that interpretation. The stated intent of Congress was to exempt “wholly public sector” labor organizations from the coverage of the Act. TheBremertoncourt found that an intermediate labor organization is not “wholly public sector” and exempt from the Act where it is subordinate to a parent organization that meets the definition of a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce. The Department's regulation at 29 CFR 451.3(a)(4) is not contrary to theBremertondecision when the regulation is read as giving effect to the court's interpretation of the term “wholly public sector labor organization.” The Department concludes that none of the commenters provides a persuasive argument for disagreeing with theBremertoncourt's reading of the statute and therefore will maintain the expanded language in the instructions for the Form LM-2. The expanded language adopting theBremertoncourt's construction of the statute will also be added to the instructions for Forms LM-3 and LM-4, but since no other changes will be made to those forms, neither the forms nor the instructions for those forms will be reprinted in the appendix.

In its comments, the NEA incorporated by reference the arguments presented by its state affiliates inAlabama Education Association, et al.v.Chao,No. 1:03CV00253 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 14, 2003). There, the NEA's state affiliates argue that they represent only public employees and are self governing, autonomous organizations affiliated with the NEA, not subordinate bodies within the meaning of section 3(j)(5) of the LMRDA and, therefore, not subject to the LMRDA, even if the NEA is subject. The AFL-CIO, in a comment related to the NEA state affiliates' argument inAlabama Education Association, et al.v.Chao,cautioned that neither the Department of Labor nor the Ninth Circuit can do away with the statutory limitation of the section 3(j) proviso to entities that are “subordinate” to a national or international union covered by the LMRDA. The AFL-CIO further commented that the proposal to amend coverage language should not be used to preempt pending litigation, and the NPRM preamble should not be used to create an argument in litigation that the Department of Labor's adoption of this statutory instruction is entitled to deference.

The question whether a particular labor organization falls within theBremertontest is not decided by the proposed language of the instructions or the references toBremertonin the NPRM. That coverage issue involves a factual determination that will turn on the application of the statutory terms to the circumstances of each case. While this rulemaking provides a vehicle for making clear the Department's interpretation of the statutory term, after notice and comment, the factual question whether a particular labor organization meets the statutory test applying that interpretation cannot and should not be resolved in this context. The NEA's state affiliates and other entities are free to challenge the application of theBremertoninterpretation to their organizations and to pursue any avenues relative to the issue of their coverage under the LMRDA. The proposed language in the instructions and accompanying references are not intended to forestall any such action, but rather to make clear the Department's views regarding the general meaning of the statutory terms.

One commenter mistakenly read the instructions and the preamble language to include state or local central bodies among those organizations that must file. The LMRDA and the Department's regulations at 29 CFR 451.5 make clear that a “state or local central body” is excepted from the definition of labor organization in section 3(i) and the definition of a labor organization deemed to be engaged in an industry affecting commerce in section 3(j). The Department's adoption of the reasoning of theBremertoncourt does not bring these organizations within the ambit of the LMRDA, either explicitly or implicitly.

An additional comment urged the Department to continue to seek full disclosure from the Washington State Education Association, as state law provided no comparable protection for public sector employees. The Department will seek compliance from all organizations required by the LMRDA to file labor organization reports.

B. Itemization of Major Receipts and Disbursements1. General Comments Concerning Itemization

The Department received numerous comments concerning proposed Schedules 14 through 19. These Schedules call for individual identification of certain receipts and disbursements for various categories that reflect the services provided to union members. Receipts and disbursements are allocated to Schedules 14 through 19 and are either listed as individual entries or asaggregated entries. Individual (or “major”) receipts and disbursements, as well as payments to or from a single entity or individual that aggregate to meet the disclosure threshold, must be reported.

The Department received several comments supporting itemization. Most of these comments expressed general approval for requiring disclosure of financial information in greater detail. A common theme of these comments was a belief that the Department's proposal would increase the accountability of union officials to union members, serve to discourage union corruption, and improve overall union democracy. One comment cited a specific instance in which union officials concealed improper transactions within aggregated disbursements, which could have been prevented (or at least identified) by itemized reporting. Similarly, commenters related well-publicized situations involving union officers who allegedly misappropriated funds as examples of instances where itemization, by allowing members to detect questionable transactions, would have limited the damage to the union and its finances and, perhaps, deterred the individuals involved from breaching the obligations entrusted to them. Other commenters stated that without itemization “ and the transparency it brings to union finances “ union members have little defense against the potential mismanagement and misappropriation of union funds. Unusual spending patterns or shifts in expenses, as revealed in a Form LM-2, a commenter stated, may tip union members off to fraud and abuse, allowing them the option of disciplining or removing wasteful or corrupt union leaders.

Other comments supported itemization because it replaces broad categories with more useable, informative, and detailed data. These commenters emphasized the members' right and need to know how a union is spending their money to ensure that it is being managed well and spent wisely. Members expressed particular concerns about the lack of information about various categories of expenses, among them political activities, joint labor-management programs, and the transfer of funds to other entities. The Regulatory Studies Program of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University commented, “By increasing the number of classification categories, lowering the dollar level of disclosures, and by potentially increasing the number of people who must participate in a potential fraud, the revised reports * * * should make committing fraud more costly than it is under current disclosure rules.”

Many commenters turned to recent corporate finance scandals in describing their general support for greater transparency among institutions, whether governmental, business, or labor organizations. They stated that greed can infect any organization and that disclosure is its best remedy. As noted by some commenters, the fiscal integrity of labor organizations has a profound impact on the financial stability and security of employees. The mismanagement, or failure, of labor organizations can cause major disruptions in work relationships, retirement plans, and overall employee well being.

The Department received voluminous comments opposing itemization and raising a number of concerns about the necessity of reporting this information; potential problems involving adequate accounting systems; possible adverse consequences from disclosing the required information; and a variety of other issues.

Several comments opposed itemization in general as too costly or burdensome because current union accounting systems or practices do not capture all of the information required by the criteria, and that electronic record keeping systems will have to be reconfigured to comport with the revised form. The Department believes the comments overstate the technological difficulties involved in transforming existing accounting systems to accommodate itemization procedures. Preliminarily, union officers and employees will need to study the instructions and forms, and thereby gain an understanding of the new requirements. The Department will launch a compliance assistance initiative that includes an overview of the requirements, a comparison to the old requirements, a tentative schedule of seminars for international, national, intermediate and local unions hosted throughout the country, an email list-serve to provide periodic updates to interested parties, web-based materials that include frequently asked questions, a description of the Form T-1 registration process, and other topics of interest to filers.

Once union officials understand the new reporting requirements, it may be necessary to make some adjustments to their recordkeeping systems. The most important change that should be made immediately involves the tracking of disbursements and “other” receipts to ensure that each disbursement and “other” receipt is allocated to the proper disbursement category with a descriptive purpose. Although some commenters asserted that this is a dramatic policy shift tantamount to imposing a new accounting system, unions have always been required to allocate each disbursement to one or more disbursement categories on the Form LM-2. The revised form alters the categories but not the underlying method of allocating these disbursements. Indeed, there are fewer disbursement categories on the new form. After allocating the disbursement, the union officer or bookkeeper makes a brief entry on the “purpose” for each transaction in a memo field. These sorts of operations are routine within accounting systems; organizations change the way disbursements are classified in the normal course of business.

The AFL-CIO's survey data also suggests that many unions already maintain their records and accounting systems in ways that are readily compatible with the requirements of the final rule. For example, the AFL-CIO's survey data suggest: 59% of national and international unions record expenses by type of activity or functional category; 62% of unions can generate the required itemization detail; 86% of unions do not have trouble downloading information from their account systems into a spreadsheet; 40% of national and international unions have a system of accounts receivable that is immediately compatible with the final rule, and 66% of national and international unions have a system of accounts payable that is immediately compatible with the final rule. Labor organizations that do not currently maintain electronic books, or that use accounting software that cannot be modified to track the data required by the revised form, will experience an increased burden, but as the analysis under the Paperwork Reduction Act indicates in Section V, the burden is, on average, a modest one.

The burden of reporting the individual items required by Schedules 14-19 is minimized by the electronic reporting system, which creates efficiency gains by performing the administrative functions of the reporting system. To this end, the Department has provided technical specifications to assist labor organizations in converting financial data into a form supported by the Department's electronic filing software. The technical specifications contained in the appended Data Specifications Document (DSD) inform affected unions of the various data formats that can be exported into the electronic form. Filers will have the option of exporting itemized data fromstandard accounting reports in one of several common file formats. There will be a non-recurring burden as the filers create the proper reports, which can then be used in future years. It is important to note that smaller filers that would only report a handful of itemized transactions for the year may choose to complete the form manually through copy-and-paste techniques rather than using the DSD to set up the necessary accounting reports to export the itemized data. As the analysis of the burden associated with making the changes required by the revised form, set forth in Section V, demonstrates, the burdens anticipated by many commenters are overstated.

As explained in Section V, the Department agrees with some of the comments that, even though the Department has received no comments over the years regarding its published assessments of the burden of filing the current Form LM-2, the burden of filing the current form may have been underestimated. The Department has revised its assessment of the burden associated with the current form upward in response to the comments it received in order to improve the estimate of the additional time and cost involved in filing the revised form. Even using these higher estimates and acknowledging that there will be increased costs for reporting labor organizations as a result of these reforms, the Department has concluded that the advantages derived from the more detailed reporting outweigh the extra burden imposed on unions. As noted above, the FASB acknowledges the utility of itemized (or “disaggregated”) financial data. FAS No. 117, ¶ 118. By contrast, reporting in general “bottom-line” amounts does not provide the level of detailed information that will effectively answer an interested member's inquiry. Moreover, generalized reporting places the burden on the member to obtain the information from the union, including resort to litigation if the union fails or refuses to disclose the requested information voluntarily. OLMS experience over years of auditing and investigating union financial activities indicates that increased access to information concerning a union's financial picture will enable its members to protect their own interests through more effective vigilance over union funds, and will aid OLMS in future enforcement efforts. Disclosure of basic information about major transactions is the most effective means of providing information to union members who are interested in their organization's financial affairs. Together with reporting receipts and disbursements by functional categories, the proposed rule will provide information that will help ensure that union leadership is acting in the interests of its membership.

The Department disagrees with those comments that suggest itemization will overwhelm interested parties with information. These comments rest on the erroneous premise that an individual seeking information must rely on hard-copy documents to review the Form LM-2. Labor organizations (with few exceptions), however, must file the form electronically. The new procedures provide more detailed, and more accessible, information than the existing system by utilizing the advantages of computer technology. Electronic filing permits the reviewer to focus his or her review using a search engine to guide the inquiry; on-screen (or paper) review of each entry is unnecessary. Further, the current Form LM-2 informs the member only of the aggregate disbursements (or receipts); the member must go through the trouble of obtaining more detailed information from the union concerning the individual transactions in order to find any meaningful information regarding specific receipts and disbursements. Itemized reporting provides the detailed information in a searchable format as an initial matter. Finally, Statement B of the revised Form LM-2 provides aggregate figures for each disbursement Schedule. A member reviewing the revised Form LM-2, therefore, has access toboththe aggregate and the individual disbursements for each category. Resort to the more detailed information remains at the member's discretion.

In a related vein, one comment contended that the level of detail required by itemization will inevitably result in unintentional reporting errors, “costly criminal investigations” for misreporting, and “prosecutorial abuse.” Two comments expressed an additional concern that the errors could be used to prosecute union officers under the LMRDA because the officers must certify the correctness of the reported information. The commenters' suggestion that increased reporting errors may prompt unwarranted investigations and prosecutions is speculative and unsupported by any evidence in the rulemaking record. Moreover, only willful violations, not inadvertent errors, can result in criminal liability.See29 U.S.C. 439.

Several comments argued that itemization imposes a unique reporting standard on unions that no other oversight agency requires and no other entity or organization must meet. The argument is neither accurate nor persuasive. First, as explained in detail in Section II(C), this argument is based upon incorrect assumptions. Second, other agencies do, in fact, require itemized reporting of financial transactions by certain kinds of organizations (for example, the Internal Revenue Service requires itemized reporting of disbursements by Section 527 organizations and the Federal Election Commission requires itemized reporting of receipts and disbursements by federal political committees. Third, reporting practices for a regulated community may vary depending on the particular requirements imposed by various laws. The appropriate standards for financial disclosure by labor organizations must be determined in light of the LMRDA, and not the practices, policies or criteria of other laws. In that vein, the LMRDA sought to address the particular problems posed by labor organization reporting by requiring reports containing “such detail as may be necessary to disclose its financial conditions and operations.”See29 U.S.C. 431(b). The fact that other agencies, administering other laws, utilize different reporting criteria and practices is not a valid objection to requiring itemization for purposes of the LMRDA.

2. Itemization of Confidential Information

One of the most significant concerns expressed by many comments concerned the potential harm to union interests in disclosing confidential financial and personal information required by Schedules 14-19. Commenters contended that such detailed disclosure could adversely affect union interests and activities that should be kept confidential as a matter of law or public policy. The comments focused principally on disclosure of the information to individuals or organizations outside the union that might use the information to impede legitimate union activities or otherwise harm union interests. The comments cited a variety of examples in which such itemization could be detrimental to the union itself or other organizations and individuals involved with the union and its activities: (i) Identifying individuals paid by the union to seek employment with a non-union employer in order to assist the union in organizing its workforce; (ii) revealing “job-targeting” or “market recovery” programs; (iii) discouraging the union from seeking legal advice if fee disclosure reveals the attorney-client relationship; (iv) violating legal rulesthat limit discovery about experts in litigation (e.g., FRCP 26(b)(4)(B)); (v) violating confidentiality agreements in settlements; (vi) revealing information about union organizing campaigns, political activities and legal strategies; (vii) affording tactical advantages to service vendors and opposing parties in contract negotiations; and (viii) endangering the lives of foreign labor activists supported by the union. In some cases, the comments viewed disclosure as the direct cause of a potential harm; in other cases, the comments contended that disclosure may provide clues from which an adverse party could educate itself about union activities, relationships, and strategic goals. Some commenters made similar arguments with respect to the proposal to require itemization of receipts.

The Department agrees that there may be some situations in which the potential harm to union interests occasioned by disclosing certain types of confidential information warrants an exception from the requirement to provide itemized information regarding major receipts that are not reported elsewhere on the form and major disbursements. These situations are likely to be far more limited, however, than suggested by some comments. Unions are not required to provide non-financial information regarding organizing strategy, notes of meetings, or names of volunteers on a Form LM-2. Rather, they are required only to provide certain information regarding financial transactions. Generally speaking, the information disclosed will indicate simply that a disbursement was made to, or money received from, a particular individual for a purpose described by the union. Although there may be certain consequences as a result of such disclosure—as where, for example, a union indicates that a payment has been made for “job targeting” that some might consider inappropriate—such consequences must be both serious and beyond the scope of consequences intended by the LMRDA to warrant consideration of overriding the interest in disclosure embodied in that statute.

The Department has decided, however, that commenters have made a persuasive argument that certain information need not be made available to the general public and that disclosure could be sufficiently adverse to union interests that the modification described below is warranted to permit labor organizations to protect certain confidential information on certain schedules. Specifically, the Department has concluded that this special procedure should be made available for the following types of information:

• Information that might identify individuals paid by the union to work in a non-union facility in order to assist the union in organizing employees, provided that such individuals are not employees of the union who receive more than $10,000 in the aggregate in the reporting year from the union (in which case the statute requires that it be reported,see29 U.S.C. 431(b)(3));

• Information that might provide insight into the reporting union's organizing strategy; and

• Information that might provide a tactical advantage to parties with whom the reporting union or an affiliated union is engaged or will be engaged in contract negotiations.

With respect to these specific types of information, if the reporting union believes that itemized disclosure of a specific major disbursement or aggregated disbursement would be adverse to the union's legitimate interests, it may report the disbursement in the “All Other Disbursements” portion of either Schedule 15 (Representational Activities) or Schedule 19 (Union Administration) on the Detailed Summary Page. The union must also enter a notation in Item 69 (“Additional Information”) identifying the Schedule(s) from which the union excluded any itemized receipts or disbursements because of an asserted legitimate interest in confidentiality.

A union member, however, has the statutory right “to examine any books, records, and accounts necessary to verify” the union's financial report if the member can establish “just cause” for access to the information. 29 U.S.C. 431(c); 29 CFR 403.8 (2002). In the Department's view, any exclusion of itemized disbursements from Schedules 15-19 would constitute aper sedemonstration of “just cause” for purposes of the Act. Consequently, any union member (and the Department, which need not establish “just cause”), but not a member of the public, upon request, has the right to review the undisclosed information that otherwise would have appeared in the applicable Schedule if the union withholds the information in order to protect confidentiality interests. The Department has added to the final rule a provision that clarifies the Department's interpretation of the statute in light of the specific modification of the proposed itemization requirement in response to the numerous comments received in this regard.

Some courts have held that a finding of just cause “requires balancing the [union's] financial interest in nondisclosure against the injury to the interest of [a requesting union member] and other union members in determining how funds held in trust for them are being spent.”Mallickv.Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, supra, 749 F.2d at 785. In the Department's view, this result is not required by the statute and is, in fact, inconsistent with the statutory mandate that any member be permitted to examine records to verify the union's financial report merely upon a showing of just cause, without regard to any competing interest of the union. Accordingly, language has been added to § 403.8 to make clear the Department's view that the fact that a union has chosen not to disclose the identity of an entity that has received a disbursement of $5,000 or more, on the ground that disclosure to third parties might be adverse to the union's interests, is just cause for union members to inquire as to the identity of the recipient or donor and the reason for the transfer of funds. The statute requires no additional showing to require the union to permit a member to examine the underlying records.

Further, a reporting union will also be permitted to report amounts received or disbursed pursuant to a settlement that is subject to a confidentiality agreement, or that the union is otherwise prohibited by law from disclosing, in the “All Other Receipts” or “All Other Disbursements” portion of the applicable Schedule on the Detailed Summary Page. Similarly, the Department agrees that in the extremely rare situation where disclosure would endanger the health or safety of an individual, the information need only be reported in the “All Other Receipts/Disbursements” portion of the applicable Schedule. In these circumstances, non-itemized reporting of the information, by itself, will not constitute just cause for additional disclosure.

Finally, some commenters asserted that disclosure of itemized information regarding benefits provided to individuals, such as, for example, burial expense benefits, would invade the privacy of those individuals. This argument, while persuasive, affects only disbursements that may properly be reported in Schedule 20 (Benefits). Accordingly, as discussed below, the Department has decided to retain the previous Schedule for Benefits, rather than the one proposed in the NPRM, and to continue to permit labor organizations to report these disbursements only in the aggregate.

The Department believes that the modified disclosure procedures forconfidential financial information satisfactorily address the privacy concerns raised by the comments. The comments focus primarily on the potential harm in disclosing a union's confidential information about a particular disbursement to the general public, especially individuals and entities whose interests may conflict with the union's interests. The union must report the disbursement in some form. The modified procedures enable the union to withhold the confidential information from general public disclosure while complying with the Act's reporting requirements. The union, however, may not withhold the information from its members because they have a statutory right to examine the information underlying the reported data if “just cause” exists.

Unless disclosure is prohibited by law or would endanger an individual, the concerns justifying the decision to permit nondisclosure of specific information derive from an interest in preventing members of the public, other than union members and the Department, from gaining access to that information. In the Department's view, withholding on these grounds information that should otherwise be disclosed in the Form LM-2 is a sufficient basis for “just cause.” The union's concerns regarding disclosure to third parties arise outside the context of the members' right to information. In order to protect both the union's and its members' competing interests, recognizing that the failure to report specific information for a major receipt or disbursement constitutes “just cause” for examining withheld information in these circumstances, together with the aggregate reporting of disbursements for benefits, strikes an appropriate balance.

Unions will have ample opportunity to argue that the Department's interpretation of the “just cause” provision of the statute (29 U.S.C. 431(c)) is in error before it discloses information that it has reported only in the non-itemized total. Unless a union voluntarily discloses information when it is requested by a member, the member will still be forced to seek enforcement of the right to this information in federal district court and the union will be able to argue to the court that the Department's interpretation of the statutory requirement is incorrect. Even if the court agrees that use of this reporting procedure is sufficient to support a finding of just cause, the union may argue that it has a legitimate concern that a union member may further disclose the underlying records, or information about the underlying records, in a manner detrimental to the union. In these circumstances, there is nothing in the revised regulation or forms that would prevent the union from seeking a protective order or some other means of protecting its interests.

The Department disagrees with the comment that a union's compelled disclosure of information relating to legal fees associated with an organizing campaign would improperly intrude upon the union's attorney-client privilege. This privilege does not generally extend to the fact of consultation or employment, including the payment and amount of fees.See McCormick on Evidence,§ 90, (5th ed. 1999, updated 2003). Further, while the privilege might protect the identity of a client when sought from an attorney, a client can be required to divulge the name of its attorney, which would be relevant here.Id.Similarly, the Department has concluded that the rule that limits discovery about experts in litigation to “exceptional circumstances” is not relevant, in that the language of the rule protects the “facts known or opinions held” of the expert, which would not be revealed in a Form LM-2.SeeFRCP 26(b)(4)(B). Nor is the mere fact that a disbursement has been made likely to reveal a union's legal strategies. Further, to the extent that a payment to an attorney or expert can meet the standards for non-itemized disclosure—that is, for example, because disclosure of a payment to an attorney would somehow provide a tactical advantage to a party with whom the reporting union is engaged in contract negotiations—a union may utilize those procedures. The Department does not agree that it is necessary to permit unions to avoid the itemized reporting obligation simply because disclosure might reveal the union's political activities. Indeed, as demonstrated by the comments discussed in Section C (4), such disbursements are likely to be of particular interest to union members and no convincing argument has been advanced regarding any legitimate need to keep such information confidential.

Other comments objected to reporting a recipient's address because the information was unnecessary or impinged on the recipient's privacy through its publication. The Department disagrees. The schedules only require the disclosure of business addresses, if available, but at least the recipient's city and state. This information is necessary for verifying the recipient's existence and identity. The privacy concern is questionable given the public availability of most addresses for individuals and business entities on the Internet and in telephone books. Finally, labor organizations may resolve any serious privacy concerns with respect to the types of information specified above by exercising their option to report the disbursement in question in the “All Other Disbursements” entry for the schedule on the Detailed Summary Page. While concealing the identity of individuals or entities receiving disbursements may raise questions concerning the disbursement's legitimacy, such questions are precisely the reason that labor organizations will be required to indicate in Item 69 (“Additional Information”) that they have used this procedure and that use of this procedure will constitute “just cause” for union members who request access to the underlying information.

3. Itemization of Major Receipts

The Department proposed changes to Schedule 14 to require additional information for reporting “other receipts” in the reporting period. “Other receipts” consist of all receipts that the labor organization does not report elsewhere in Statement B of Form LM-2. Specifically, the Department proposed requiring a labor organization to identify all the other receipts that are “major” receipts. A “major” receipt is either an individual receipt of $5,000 or more, or the aggregate receipts from an individual source over the reporting period totaling $5,000 or more. Each such receipt must be listed by payee with the following information: the name and address of the entity providing the receipt; the type of business or job classification of the entity; the purpose of the receipt; the date of the receipt; and the amount of the receipt.

A variety of comments addressed the proposed $5,000 threshold for “major” receipts. Some comments considered the threshold too high because $5,000 allows a margin within which union officials may still commit financial improprieties, and prevents union members from reviewing the smaller amounts for potential improprieties,i.e., complete transparency for union finances. The comments recommended thresholds ranging from zero to $2,000 as a means of obtaining greater (or complete) information about a union's receipts. Other comments considered the threshold too low. The majority of these comments recommended $25,000 as an appropriate figure; others suggested basing the threshold on a percentage of the union's receipts (the higher of either 4% or $15,000, or a level related to the GAAP concept of materiality). A related recommendation applied a graduated threshold thatincreases with the increase in a union's income. In general, the proponents of higher thresholds contended that the $5,000 figure results in burdensome reporting requirements and excessive detail.

The Department believes that $5,000 is an appropriate threshold for reporting “other” receipts. The comments underscore the competing interests in setting a reasonable figure. Setting the threshold lower (or eliminating it entirely) increases the number of receipts that must be reported, which correspondingly increases the information available for inspection. A lower threshold, however, also would increase the burden, particularly for aggregated receipts from individual sources. Raising the threshold would reduce the reporting burden, but it also would reduce the financial information captured for review and thereby undermine the goal of transparency. While a strong argument could be made that all disbursements are significant and should be itemized, the Department concludes that some threshold must be used that accommodates both the purpose behind the disclosure of such information and the concerns about the burden of tracking and reporting the information. The $5,000 threshold strikes a balance between the opposing viewpoints. Full-time workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $740 in 2002.See Union Members in 2002,Bureau of Labor Statistics News Release (USDL-03-88) (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that to union members, $5,000 represents a significant amount of money. A receipt (or aggregated receipts from an individual source) in this amount may reasonably attract interest in the payment's source. The Department will continue to be mindful of the need for any future adjustment in the threshold for itemization in order to ensure that the information reported is meaningful.

The Department rejects the suggested use of percentage-based thresholds rather than defined dollar amounts. A percentage-based threshold will vary annually depending on the figure (e.g., annual receipts) from which it is derived. This figure cannot be determined until the close of the fiscal year. In any given year, moreover, the base figure itself may be controversial if the Department and the union disagree as to the monies that should be included in that figure. A percentage-based threshold is therefore unstable and more difficult to enforce. A defined dollar threshold provides an unequivocal and predictable standard by which each union may determine whether a receipt must be reported as a major receipt, as well as one that members may use with ease and certainty in reviewing the Form LM-2. Some commenters recommended that the Department index the threshold annually for inflation. The Department disagrees for the same reason it rejects the use of a percentage-based threshold: adopting a figure that is subject to annual fluctuation creates an unpredictable standard. The Department believes all parties will benefit from a defined standard that applies to all unions. The Department also rejects the use of a graduated threshold linked to union income. This approach suffers from the same defects as percentage-based thresholds and thresholds indexed to inflation, discussed above. Furthermore, a single standard unrelated to union income promotes the purposes of the LMRDA. Although the economic significance to the union of $5,000 may vary with the size of a union's income, the interest of the membership in having access to a broad array of information concerning the sources and uses of union finances, and in the detection and deterrence of fraud, remains constant.

The proposed Schedule 14 requires a union to report aggregated receipts from each individual source if the total amount received from the individual source is $5,000 or more. Some comments opposed aggregation because tracking each receipt throughout the fiscal year to determine whether all receipts from a specific source ultimately reach the threshold is burdensome. The Department believes that aggregation of receipts is appropriate. In terms of its interest to a union member, there is no difference between a single $5,000 (or more) receipt from one source and several receipts from one source totaling $5,000 or more. Consequently, reporting aggregated receipts is equally important in terms of achieving transparency for a union's financial picture.

Despite the concerns expressed by numerous commenters, tracking multiple receipts from a specific source throughout the fiscal year will not impose unreasonable additional burden on a reporting union. The revised form alters the categories but not the underlying method of allocating these disbursements, and, indeed, reduces the number of disbursement categories. After allocating the disbursement to the proper category, the union officer need only make a brief entry on the “purpose” for each transaction in a memo field. These sorts of operations are routine within accounting systems. As demonstrated in the Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis, in Section V, the cost of maintaining sufficient information to permit the aggregation of major receipts not reported elsewhere from, and disbursements to, a single entity over the course of the year, combined with all of the other changes as a result of this rule, were estimated in order to arrive at a realistic assessment of the overall cost of these reforms. Balancing this cost for reporting unions against the benefits for union members, and for unions themselves, resulting from increased transparency—including the enhancement of the ability of members to fully participate in the democratic governance of their unions and the deterrent value of disclosure in preventing mismanagement and misappropriation of union funds—the Department has concluded that itemization, to which only a portion of this cost is attributable, is not only a worthwhile, but an essential, element of this reform.

4. Itemization of Major Disbursements

The Department also proposed to require labor organizations to report “major” disbursements in specified categories. A “major” disbursement is either an individual disbursement meeting the threshold-reporting amount or a series of payments to an individual that, in the aggregate, reach the threshold, in a single category. The Department requested comments on the appropriate threshold for a “major” disbursement, proposing a $2,000-$5,000 range. The Department also requested comments on whether individual disbursements among different categories should be aggregated to reach the threshold.

The Department received numerous comments concerning the appropriate threshold for itemizing disbursements on the various Schedules. Several comments recommended setting the threshold in the $200-$500 range to increase the amount of information about disbursements that the unions must disclose; one comment suggested setting the threshold at zero for the same reason. Conversely, many comments criticized the proposed threshold as too low. Several comments expressed general opposition but did not provide a specific alternative. Commenters that did propose an alternative threshold typically recommended using a $25,000 figure. A few comments suggested indexing the threshold to some other figure (e.g., total assets, disbursements or annual revenues) to establish a floating threshold linking it to the union's size or financial activity. As with itemization of “other” receipts, theproponents of higher thresholds contended that a lower baseline would result in burdensome and excessive detail.

The Department has decided to adopt $5,000, the highest proposed amount, as the threshold for itemizing disbursements. As with the “other” receipts threshold, the fundamental issue involves a balancing of competing interests. Advocates of a low (or no) threshold emphasized the need for transparency of union finances; by lowering or eliminating the threshold, the union must divulge a greater amount of financial information. Ultimately, greater transparency enhances the deterrence of union financial misconduct and provides union members with more knowledge about the union's activities, regardless of any potential financial mismanagement. Greater transparency, however, also involves a greater burden on the unions in terms of reporting. Proponents of a higher threshold focused on this aspect, and urged the Department to set a high standard,e.g., $25,000. After consideration of both viewpoints, the Department believes that a $5,000 threshold strikes the proper balance between the benefits and costs of itemization. First, it is plain that virtually any disbursement is significant in that it provides information on how the union is being run, and provides a potential avenue for fraud. Second, the Department has concluded that the threshold should be set at an amount that will, in effect, establish a uniform standard for determining that a particular transaction, or set of transactions, is reportable. Third, the threshold must accommodate the concerns about the burden of tracking and reporting the information. The Department will continue to be mindful of the need for any future adjustment in the threshold for itemization in order to ensure that the information reported is meaningful. Several comments recommended using indexed thresholds rather than defined dollar amounts. The comments contended that indexed thresholds provide a more accurate basis for determining whether a disbursement is significant in light of the union's overall level of outlay. Two comments merely suggested adopting an indexed threshold as a general proposition. Other comments identified specific alternative formulae: 5% of total union assets; 5% of total disbursements; or a percentage based on the GAAP concept of materiality.

The Department rejects the indexed threshold approach because it does not provide a desirable level of certainty for the reporting community. An indexed threshold will vary annually depending on the base figure from which the threshold is derived. This figure cannot be determined until the close of the fiscal year. In any given year, moreover, the base figure itself may be controversial if the Department and the union disagree as to the monies that should be included in the base figure, complicating a union's ability to comply with, and the Department's ability to enforce, the reporting requirements. Any disagreement over the base figure will necessarily affect the indexed threshold and disrupt the reporting of disbursements. Thus, a figure that is subject to annual fluctuation creates an unpredictable standard. A defined dollar threshold provides an unequivocal and predictable standard by which each union may determine whether a disbursement must be reported. Although the economic significance to the union of $5,000 may vary with the size of a union's income, the interest of the membership in having access to a broad array of information concerning the sources and uses of union finances, and in the detection and deterrence of fraud, remains constant.

The proponents of an indexed threshold or a materiality standard premised their arguments on the belief that a bright line threshold will require reporting of immaterial disbursements. As explained above, the Department's adoption of a $5,000 threshold is based in large part upon the view that receipts and disbursements of that amount are significant to union members. Further, the Department does not believe that the GAAP's test for materiality is persuasive in this context. As a commenter noted, unlike commercial entities, which are accountable based on their profit or loss, labor unions are accountable in terms of the stewardship responsibilities of their officers. Consequently, the use of a sum that would have little effect on an entity's viability may be safely ignored by an investor who cares only for return on investment, but may be of considerable interest to a union member when spent by his or her union, as the union member's interest extends well beyond a concern with the union's bottom line, to the furtherance of its overall mission. A materiality standard would not give sufficient weight to these non-economic concerns, for a union member is interested not solely in the funds themselves, but the activities of the union. See Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2 (SFAC No. 2), ¶¶123-132. Further, adoption of the vague materiality standard as the threshold for itemization would require unions to obtain substantial professional assistance, thus increasing the burden on the labor organization.See id.

A few comments opposed reporting aggregated disbursements to a single entity or individual if the total amount meets the threshold because the union would have to track each disbursement through the fiscal year to determine whether the aggregated amount meets the threshold at the end of the year. Other comments treated aggregation as part of itemization and opposed both requirements because they perceived the entire reporting process as imposing burdensome and costly compliance requirements; providing too much information to be useful; imposing a unique and more rigorous standard on labor unions than applies to any other organization; and requiring significant and costly changes to the union's current accounting system.

With respect to tracking minor (less than $5,000) disbursements through the fiscal year, the Department does not believe the comments identify a substantial basis for abandoning the aggregation principle. Once the union installs or modifies its accounting software to appropriately chart each disbursement, tracking every disbursement regardless of amount will not be burdensome. Indeed, unions already must track every disbursement, and must know the type and amount of each disbursement, in order to report them in the appropriate aggregate amounts for each category on the existing Form LM-2. Furthermore, the advantages of aggregation offset any additional burden from tracking all disbursements. Aggregation denies the incentive to break up a “major” disbursement to a single entity or individual in order to avoid the threshold for itemizing the payment to circumvent the reporting requirements of the statute. Aggregation therefore provides a more accurate picture of a union's disbursements because it focuses on the total amount of money the union pays a particular entity or individual, rather than only the “major” disbursements. Given the benefits of aggregation and the fact that unions are already required to track each disbursement, the Department rejects the position that aggregation will be overly burdensome by requiring the union to track all disbursements, including those that ultimately will not be reported as itemized payments.

The Department invited comments on whether to require itemization of disbursements to an individual or entity that, in the aggregate, total less than the threshold amount in a particular Schedule once the threshold has been reached either in another Schedule or ina combination of Schedules. The comments reflected little or no support for aggregation among the Schedules. Although virtually all disbursements are significant, cross-Schedule aggregation would perceptibly increase the burden on unions, as it would require an additional modification to the union's accounting programs or procedures, and would require internal accounting reports to be generated for all payees under all Schedules, rather than permitting more focused inquiries on a Schedule-by-Schedule basis. As noted elsewhere, the Department believes that the $5,000 threshold strikes a balance between the benefits of transparent financial disclosure and the burdens caused by detailed reporting. The most effective means of preserving this compromise in the context of categorical reporting is to apply the threshold to each individual Schedule. Further, each Schedule reflects the distinctiveness of the disbursements in that particular category. If disbursements to an entity or individual in a particular category are minor as measured by the threshold for reporting, then the union should not have to itemize those disbursements (and all other categories of disbursements) simply because dissimilar disbursements in another category are comparatively more substantial and do meet the threshold. Disbursements to an entity or individual must therefore reach the threshold for each Schedule before a union must itemize the disbursements attributable to that specific category. Meeting the threshold for any one Schedule will have no effect on the obligation to itemize disbursements for any other Schedule. This approach not only reduces the overall reporting burden, but also preserves the distinction among the various categories of disbursements established by the Schedules.

The Form LM-2 requires the union to provide the following information for each itemized disbursement in Schedules 15-19: The recipient's name and address; the recipient's business or job classification; the purpose or reason for making the disbursement; the date on which the union made the disbursement; and the disbursement's amount. The Department received numerous comments objecting to reporting this information. A few comments expressed specific concerns about the difficulty in tracking and recording all of the required information for credit cards,e.g., the date of payment (rather than charge), and the full name and address of the recipient. In this context, one union stated that the proposed treatment of credit cards, which requires that each vendor paid with a credit card be treated as a separate disbursement, is an example of a new burden that the Department's analysis simply ignored. The union also noted that this recordkeeping requirement was far from a standard business practice. Although another union noted that the proposed changes in reporting expenses paid by credit card would vastly increase the number of individual transactions that must be entered, processed and reported, this union stated that it currently follows standard business practices and divides the charges that are paid with a credit card into separate accounting entries for each underlying type of expense and responsible department. The union also noted that any credit card charge that is required to be reported as a disbursement to an individual officer or employee (per the instructions for current Schedules 9 and 10) is coded so that information is available for the current Form LM-2 report. As noted by the preceding comment, unions are now required to break out credit card disbursements by category on the current form, rather than simply treating the payment as a transaction solely involving the creditor bank. To the extent any union may have misapprehended this requirement, the revised Form LM-2 makes this point explicitly.

Another union commented that many credit card transactions involve plane tickets or hotel bills and frequently have charges issued when a trip is booked and a credit issued if the trip is cancelled or changed and that the charges and credits may appear in different monthly statements—sometimes in amounts that are not exactly the same. The union stated that it is not clear from the proposed instructions if the Department intends that such charges and refunds be matched or reported separately. Such amounts must be tracked in the current and revised Form LM-2, as they constitute receipts and disbursements. The method by which these amounts should be tracked is set forth in the instructions. Otherwise, as the union itself noted, if the transactions are reported without any attempt to match them, anyone trying to read and understand the report will find it virtually impossible to calculate the amount of true expenses.

The Department recognizes that filers will not always have the same access to information regarding credit card payments as with other transactions. Filers should report all of the information required in the itemization schedules that is available to the union. For instance, in the case of credit card transactions for which the union's receipts and monthly statements do not provide the full legal name of a payee and the union does not have possession of any other documents that would contain the information, the union should report the name as it appears on its receipts and statements. Similarly, if the union's credit card receipts and statements do not include a full street address, the union should report as much information as is available, but no less than the city and state. A labor organization may choose to report either the date of the charge or the date of the payment for a credit card transaction as long as the method of reporting is consistent throughout the form.

The Department has considered the comments that assert that an unreasonable burden will be incurred by the filers in recording each transaction in their recordkeeping systems, but is not persuaded by them. The burden is similar to the burden already imposed by the current Form LM-2 reporting requirements. The current Form LM-2 requires unions to track all credit card transactions to determine whether each transaction must be reported on one of the disbursement schedules or elsewhere in the report. The current form does not treat a payment to a credit card company as a single disbursement. For instance, a single payment to a credit card company may include amounts that must be reported in “Disbursements for Official Business” in column (F) of Schedule 9, “Other Disbursements” in column (G) of Schedule 9, and “Office and Administrative Expenses” on Schedule 13. This has always been a requirement. Many credit card companies have made it easier to track information regarding vendors for specific charges by allowing their customers to download the contents of monthly statements or individual transactions electronically via the Internet. Once these transactions have been incorporated into the union's record keeping system they can be treated like any other transaction for purposes of assigning a description and purpose.

C. Disbursement Schedules 14-191. Reporting by Functional Category

The Department received a large number of comments on its proposal to require unions to report their disbursements by defined categories based, in part, on a grouping of functional activities performed by a union, its officers, and employees. The Department proposed to include eightreporting categories on the Form LM-2: (1) Contract negotiation and administration, (2) organizing, (3) political activities, (4) lobbying, (5) contributions/gifts/grants, (6) general overhead, (7) benefits, and (8) other disbursements. Almost all the national and international unions that submitted comments addressed this issue, as did most of the trade associations and public interest organizations. A number of local union officials and members submitted comments, as did many “agency fee payers” (and other individuals who did not indicate whether they worked in units represented by unions).

The Department received several comments from trade associations, public interest organizations, union members and others in support of the proposal. They asserted that the proposed changes in reporting requirements are necessary to allow members and potential members to better understand the operation of particular unions and to make informed choices about whether to join, or retain their membership in, these unions. They stated that the proposed Form LM-2 would permit a member to determine the union's priorities and whether they accord with the member's own priorities and those of the general membership. The same information would inform individuals who may be considering voting for or joining a particular union. Several commenters also expressed the view that functional reporting would better enable members, the Department, and the public to uncover any improper use of union funds and deter union officials or employees from embezzling or otherwise making improper use of such funds.

Although some commenters stated that the proposed changes would impose some burdens on unions, these costs, in their opinion, are outweighed by the gain in transparency. Today's electronic recordkeeping systems, in one commenter's opinion, make it possible for labor unions to provide a wealth of financial information with minimal burden. The commenter also stated that the burden would decrease once unions learn of the need to code transactions in ways that fit the reporting categories.

A number of labor organizations stated that the proposed system, if adopted, would entail very substantial burdens and costs to the union without significant gain, if any, in informing union members about the operation of their union. A few commenters indicated that there would be severe practical problems posed by the need to “code,” by function, virtually all the union's financial transactions, which they characterized as a burdensome and time-consuming undertaking. Union commenters asserted that they lack the present capability to maintain their records in a way that would allow them to meet the proposal's requirements. The Department finds these contentions unpersuasive. Unions have always been required to allocate each disbursement to a category on the Form LM-2. The revised form alters and reduces the number of categories, but not the allocation process. Accounting software will need to be adjusted to reflect the revised categories, but these sorts of operations are routine within accounting systems and do not present an unreasonable burden. One union commenter noted that long distance charges and utility payments, under the revised rule, must be allocated across multiple functional schedules and that such a process would pose a significant burden. This commenter has failed to note, however, that these telephone and utility payments would have to be coded to a category under the existing form, and further classified by general groupings or bookkeeping categories.

Several labor organizations acknowledged that they already categorize their activities, including disbursements, by functional category. Some explained that they do so in order to comply with Beck, but others explained that functional reporting is a useful financial management tool. Still others said that they categorize for the functions reported on the current form. At the same time, however, some commenters explained that even with sophisticated functional accounting systems in place, it would be difficult for unions to program their systems to meet the Department's proposed requirements. As demonstrated in the Section V, in the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, the Department has considered these burdens and determined that the burden is reasonable.

The AFL-CIO stated that the Department's proposal would force each union to conform its operations to the manner in which the Department assumes all unions operate or should operate. In this connection, some of the unions state that the Department's proposal misapprehends the way in which unions conduct their affairs. Many unions argued that the Department's proposal represents the first time that unions have been required to collect and report information by functional categories.

Several commenters expressed concern that the proposal, in spite of the burden and expense it would impose on unions, would fail to achieve its goal of better informing members about union finances and operations. As put by one commenter, the proposal creates artificial and misleading categories of disbursements that will overwhelm a member with a deluge of detail, not enlighten him. These comments rest on the erroneous premise that an individual seeking information must sort through a paper submission to review the Form LM-2. Electronic reporting permits a union member to focus his or her review using a search engine to guide the inquiry; on-screen (or paper) review of each entry is unnecessary. Further, the current Form LM-2 informs the member only of the aggregate disbursements (or receipts); the member must go through the trouble of obtaining more detailed information from the union concerning the individual transactions in order to find any meaningful information regarding specific receipts and disbursements. Itemized reporting provides the detailed information in a searchable format as an initial matter. Finally, Statement B of the Form LM-2 provides aggregate figures for each disbursement Schedule. A member reviewing the revised Form LM-2, therefore, has access to both the aggregate and the individual disbursements for each category. Resort to the more detailed information remains at the member's discretion.

Instead of putting unions to the burden and expense of creating the detail required by the Department's proposal, one union expressed the view that the Department should rely on a union member's ability to vote out officials who are pursuing an unpopular agenda, not by imposing additional paperwork requirements. Another commenter suggested that the Department could achieve its goal by permitting unions to allocate their expenditures, based on the estimates of its officers and staff, and thus dispensing with the need to exhaustively “account for every sheet of paper, every pen and pencil, etc.” The Department has considered these proposals and has determined that they would not effectively provide an adequate amount of reliable information to union members concerning the union's financial operations and conditions. The revised reporting requirements will enhance union democracy, by providing members with information needed to cast an informed vote. In addition, the suggestion that unions should be allowed to allocate disbursements by estimate would necessarily produce reports of questionable accuracy.

One union stated that the Department could achieve its goal without such drastic changes in the requirements by using the methodology in the current Form LM-2. In its view, the Department could have taken the “natural categories” on the present Form LM-2 and divided them into natural “subcategories,” or it could have developed schedules similar to those presently required for “Office and Administrative Expenses” or “Benefits.” While such revisions would still involve reporting disbursements in the aggregate, members would have the right under Section 201(c) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431(c), to obtain more detailed data directly from their union. The Department rejects the suggestion that unions should be allowed to design their own functional reporting categories or add categories to those prescribed by the Department. As explained by the FASB in the Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information, at ¶ 16, not even the FASB expects “all its policy decisions to accord exactly with the preferences of every one of its constituents.”

Indeed, they clearly cannot do so, for the preferences of its constituents do not accord with each other. Left to themselves, business enterprises, even in the same industry, would probably choose to adopt different reporting methods for similar circumstances. But in return for the sacrifice of some of that freedom, there is a gain from the greater comparability and consistency that adherence to externally imposed standards brings with it. There also is a gain in credibility. The public is naturally skeptical about the reliability of financial reporting if two enterprises account differently for the same economic phenomena.

Information about an enterprise gains greatly in usefulness if it can be compared with similar information about other enterprises and with similar information about the same enterprise for some other period or some other point in time. The significance of information, especially quantitative information, depends to a great extent on the user's ability to relate it to some benchmark.

Id., ¶ 111. Further, a union member's statutory right, under Section 201(c) of the LMRDA, to examine records underlying the report is a complement to, but does not supplant, a union's statutory duty to report. In light of the comments from union members concerning the difficulties members have faced in obtaining review of these records, the Department has determined that altering the categories, rather than merely relying on Section 201(c), would more effectively further the transparency goals of the LMRDA. See 29 U.S.C. 431(c).

The Department does not agree with the assertion that the better course is to simply disaggregate the categories in the existing Form LM-2 to effect more detailed reporting. In response to specific comments, the Department has combined two proposed categories (“Contract Negotiation and Administration” and “Organizing”) into a single schedule entitled “Representational Activities,” added a category entitled “Union Administration,” combined the proposed categories for “Political Activities” and “Lobbying” into a single schedule, and eliminated the category entitled “Other Disbursements.” The categories that remain are tailored to reflect the activities performed by unions, and will allow union members to readily gauge whether the union is committing its resources in the sums and proportions they consider appropriate. Requiring itemization of major disbursements within the current categories would not serve this purpose.

Union commenters faulted the proposal for failing to address the Department's prior position, articulated in 1993, that functional reporting imposed a very substantial burden on unions without significantly advancing a member's understanding of his or her union's operations and finances. There is no merit to the assertion that the Department's proposal failed to address the Department's earlier position. The NPRM described the Department's rulemaking efforts in 1992 and 1993; its discussion addressed the same basic points that were the focus of the 1992 and 1993 rulemaking and outlined the reasons why the Department's current proposals are appropriate. The NPRM also identified aspects of the proposal that differ from the 1992 final rules, thereby providing the public with a full exposition of the Department's position and its views on the various points addressed in 1992 and 1993.

The commenters correctly noted that the Department's current proposals resemble the views expressed in support of the Department's 1992 final rule more closely than the later concerns that led to the Department's reconsideration of functional reporting and the rescission of the final rule. Although the 1993 rulemaking identified some perceived problems with the 1992 final rule, which the Department addresses in the instant rulemaking, the tension between the positions was based largely on policy assessments as to the relative utility and burden associated with the change in reporting requirements. While the Department does not hold the same views on this issue as it did in 1993, the statute provides—now, as in 1993—the Department latitude in determining the form and amount of detail that should be reported by unions. Most significantly, there have been advances in technology (including its availability and application) in the last 10 years, as computers and financial management programs have become much more widely used. Internet access is more commonly available and the benefit of making information available over the Internet has been generally, and congressionally, recognized. These changes make it possible to provide substantially more information to union members and the public with less burden on unions than the changes considered in 1992 and 1993 would have imposed at that time.

Union commenters challenged assumptions that underlie the Department's functional category proposal on two related grounds. First, they contended that unions are not required to collect and report their expenses in the categories prescribed by the proposed rule by either “standard business practices” as reflected in GAAP or by “existing [federal] forms” such as the IRS Form 990. Second, the unions asserted that the categories proposed by the Department do not “describe the most common important purposes for which unions spend money.” GAAP and the IRS Form 990, they assert, leave it to the reporting organization to identify what the organization believes to be its most important functions. The union commenters contended, in effect, that the Department seeks to impose one artificial, static functional reporting system on all unions without any regard as to how they presently account for their expenditures. In support of these arguments, the comments provided few, if any, examples of the most common purposes for which unions spend money, or appropriate reporting categories. The AFL-CIO argued that the relevant accounting standards provide for two basic types of expense classification. The first type is “natural expense classification,” which “group[s] expenses according to the kinds of economic benefits received in incurring th[e] expenses,” for example, “salaries and wages, employee benefits, supplies, rent, and utilities” (citing, AICPA Not-For Profits Guide 514). The AFL-CIO asserted that the other basic type is “functional classification,” which “group[s] expenses according to the purpose for which the costs are incurred.” Id. at 513. “The primaryfunctional classifications are program services and supporting activities.” Id. The AFL-CIO then proceeded to argue that the categories proposed by the Department have no inherent rationality since some, like organizing and contract administration, relate to functions or programs, and others, like benefits, have no functional or programmatic relevance.

As discussed, in Section II(D), the GAAP standards do not govern the content of LM Forms, and are not entirely consistent with the congressionally imposed disclosure requirements of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 431(b). Further, the Department disagrees with the assertion that the use of functional categories is either unauthorized or inappropriate in any respect. In the Department's view, the increased use of functional reporting categories in the Form LM-2 will promote transparency and accountability in the reporting of a union's financial condition and operations. The revised Form LM-2, utilizing both functional and “natural” categories, will provide detailed information about financial transactions of labor organizations in an easily understood format. The new reports will be usefully organized according to the services and functions provided to union members. By using the new Form LM-2, members will be able to identify major receipts and disbursements for a variety of activities. The new Form LM-2 strengthens enforcement of the LMRDA by giving members and the public a more complete account of the financial operations of a union than provided by the current Form LM-2. Moreover, achieving this improvement has been made easier and less costly by technological advances that enable electronic recordkeeping and filing.

Functional accounting is not a new concept to labor organizations. The current Form LM-2, through its use of categories, requires labor organizations to report certain disbursements by function. Although the types of functional categories are being updated to make them more useful to union members, it is unlikely that this would require Form LM-2 filers to make wholesale changes in their accounting systems. The Department has, however, included time in its burden hour estimates to account for acquiring any new or updated accounting software and modifying existing accounting, recordkeeping, and reporting systems. Moreover, functional accounting is required of not-for-profit organizations under the standards established by the FASB. Many of the labor organizations that submitted comments acknowledged that they use functional reporting as a management tool and none of the larger unions has claimed an inability to categorize receipts and disbursements. Labor unions are not-for-profit organizations and, as such, should utilize functional reporting in preparing financial statements. FAS 117, ¶ 26. As stated by the FASB, “[S]pecialized accounting and reporting principles and practices that require certain organizations to provide information about their expenses by both functional and natural classifications are not inconsistent with the requirements of this Statement.” It also noted that not-for-profit organizations often provide that information in regulatory filings to the IRS and certain state agencies, which are available to the public. FAS 117, ¶ 3. The IRS requires not-for-profit organizations, including unions, to report their expenditures by certain categories and the IRS uses several functional categories that parallel, in many respects, the categories in the proposed Form LM-2. For example, both the Form 990 and the new Form LM-2 require political and lobbying disbursements to be reported.

There is no merit to the contention that the proposed rule would unlawfully intrude upon the ability of unions to follow their own accounting procedures for their own internal purposes. The report calls for the submission of data in certain categories, but does not preclude the use of other, internal manipulations of the data. Unions may track expenses in any way they believe appropriate and, for their own purposes or the purposes of third parties (for example, as required by a financial institution for a loan or a state agency), they may report financial matters in the manner appropriate to that purpose. Further, contrary to some commenters' contentions, the Department's proposals effectuate the broad purposes of the LMRDA, while, at the same time, serving the law's purpose to ensure that members be fully apprised of their union's financial condition and operations. As noted above, these commenters have given insufficient weight to the Department's responsibility to determine the detail necessary to accurately disclose the unions' financial conditions and operations and to establish categories that will identify the purpose of disbursements, 29 U.S.C. 431(b), and to “[prescribe] the form of publications and reports” required by Title II of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 438.

The argument that, because neither the IRS nor the Beck line of authority require labor organizations to collect or report information in the categories proposed by the Department, the Department cannot reasonably impose such a requirement is unpersuasive. These comments appear to overlook the Department's responsibility to require reports that best fit the disclosure purposes of the LMRDA, not a revenue statute or a methodology developed under a statute administered by the National